Model comparison

Gemma 4 E2B vs GLM-4.7

Data verified July 16, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Gemma 4 E2B

Google

41.65/100

Margin

19.3pts

winning →

GLM-4.7

Z.AI

60.98/100

1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E2B unranked; GLM-4.7 #32

BenchAlign evidence: Gemma 4 E2B estimated; GLM-4.7 supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E2B and GLM-4.7 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Gemma 4 E2B; 17 to GLM-4.7.

Updated July 16, 2026

Shared results: 14
Gemma 4 E2B only: 1
GLM-4.7 only: 17
Comparable categories: 1 / 8

Pick GLM-4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 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 34. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GLM-4.7 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.

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 scores and score margins for Gemma 4 E2B and GLM-4.7
Category	Gemma 4 E2B	Δ	GLM-4.7
Knowledge	Gemma 4 E2B56.9	Margin← 4.8	GLM-4.752.1
Agentic	Gemma 4 E2BNot measured	MarginNo overlap	GLM-4.745.7
Coding	Gemma 4 E2BNot measured	MarginNo overlap	GLM-4.775.4
Math	Gemma 4 E2BNot measured	MarginNo overlap	GLM-4.71.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

A · Gemma 4 E2BB · GLM-4.7

GPQA
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 43.4%B 85.7%
Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 42.3
GPQA: Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%; GLM-4.7 scored 85.7%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.
MMLU-Pro
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 60%B 84.3%
Winner: GLM-4.7Δ 24.3
MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 E2B scored 60%; GLM-4.7 scored 84.3%. GLM-4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metric	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	Gemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 output	GLM-4.7$0 input / $0 output	Listed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per second	Gemma 4 E2BNot available	GLM-4.782 tok/s	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	Gemma 4 E2BNot available	GLM-4.71.10 s	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	Gemma 4 E2B128K	GLM-4.7200K	GLM-4.7 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic

8 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
τ²-bench resultsSource	20.8%	95.9%	GLM-4.7 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	—	41%	Not comparable
BrowseCompSource	—	52%	Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource	—	15.5%	Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource	—	25.4%	Not comparable
Gert LabsSource	—	39.95%	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	—	33.3%	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	—	1165	Not comparable

Coding

7 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
Terminal-Bench HardSource	3.0%	31.8%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource	20.9%	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 Coding IndexSource	—	45.3%	Not comparable
AA LiveCodeBenchSource	—	89.4%	Not comparable

Reasoning

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
AA-LCRSource	15.0%	64.0%	GLM-4.7 leads
CritPtSource	0.0%	1.7%	GLM-4.7 leads

KnowledgeGemma 4 E2B wins

9 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
GPQASource	43.4%	85.7%	GLM-4.7 leads
MMLU-ProSource	60%	84.3%	GLM-4.7 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	9.3%	33.7%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	43.3%	85.9%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-HLESource	4.8%	25.1%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	-24.0%	-34.6%	Gemma 4 E2B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	6.7%	29.3%	GLM-4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	32.9%	90.3%	Gemma 4 E2B leads
HLESource	—	24.8%	Not comparable

Math

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
AIME 2025Source	—	95.7%	Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source	—	2.439%	Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source	—	0.000%	Not comparable

Multimodal

2 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource	44.6%	—	Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource	—	1260	Not comparable

Inst. Following

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	Gemma 4 E2B	GLM-4.7	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	38.0%	67.9%	GLM-4.7 leads

Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemma 4 E2B or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 85.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E2B or GLM-4.7?

Gemma 4 E2B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.9 versus 52.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings

Last updated: July 16, 2026

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.