Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 E2B
32
GLM-4.7
67
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Knowledge
+6.5 difference
Gemma 4 E2B
GLM-4.7
$0 / $0
$0 / $0
N/A
82 t/s
N/A
1.10s
128K
200K
Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
GLM-4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 67 to 32. 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 60.6 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 43.4% to 85.7%.
GLM-4.7 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 67 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 85.7%.
GLM-4.7 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.6 versus 54.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.