Model comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GLM-4.7
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B unranked; GLM-4.7 #32
BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 26B A4B supported; GLM-4.7 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and GLM-4.7 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 13 to GLM-4.7.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Gemma 4 26B A4B only
- 3
- GLM-4.7 only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 26B A4B only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GLM-4.7's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 52.1 against 43.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 17.2% to 24.8%.
Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for GLM-4.7.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemma 4 26B A4B | Δ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 26B A4B43.8 | Margin→ 8.3 | GLM-4.752.1 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.745.7 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.775.4 |
| Math | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.71.8 |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-4.7Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM-4.7 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output | GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | GLM-4.782 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available | GLM-4.71.10 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 26B A4B256K | GLM-4.7200K | Gemma 4 26B A4B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 11.0% | 25.4% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 43.6% | 95.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 13.1% | 33.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 761 | 1165 | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 41% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 52% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 15.5% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.95% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.3% | 45.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 13.6% | 31.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.0% | 45.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 84.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
| AA LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeGLM-4.7 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.6% | 84.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| HLESource | 17.2% | 24.8% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 8.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.7% | 33.7% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.2% | 85.9% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.3% | 25.1% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -48.1% | -34.6% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 18.2% | 29.3% | GLM-4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.9% | 90.3% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
| GPQASource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GLM-4.7 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 72.4% | 67.9% | Gemma 4 26B A4B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 17.2% and 24.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or GLM-4.7?
GLM-4.7 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 52.1 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.