Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 2 27B vs GLM 4.5

Gemma 2 27B costs 3.4x less per output token than GLM 4.5 ($0.65 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 29 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 2 27B Replace GLM 4.5
Gemma 2 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.65
0
GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
12.8
Output $/M
$2.20
29
vs boards won of 29 shared

Gemma 2 27B or GLM 4.5: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.65 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Model AGemma 2 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGLM 4.5Z.aiNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
29
Gemma 2 27B only
7
GLM 4.5 only
31
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, GLM 4.5 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 39.8 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: expert: Gemma 2 27B 1171 against GLM 4.5 1433, 43.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against GLM 4.5 $2.20 per million output tokens, 3.4x apart.
Context window
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, GLM 4.5 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 2 27BBarsGLM 4.5Ties
Coding02
Reasoning03
Math02
Knowledge05
General017
All shared boards029
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured64.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.5%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.8%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured22.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
WeirdMLNot measured40.6%Only GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured344.8Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding12111434GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: software and IT12281440GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured12.8Only GLM 4.5 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index122.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured43.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured72.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured13.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)36.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11981429GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: expert11711433GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12061429GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
AIMENot measured86.7%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured90.8%Only GLM 4.5 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured73.7Only GLM 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.7%Only GLM 4.5 measured
OTIS Mock AIME1.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
MATH level 527.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: math12121427GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: mathematical work12211430GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured81.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)68.0%75.6%GLM 4.5
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured61.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured72.4%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured90.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured83.5%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MMLU75.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMArena Text: science12281444GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11981455GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: legal and government12411438GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: business and finance12081420GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1170Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1144Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1145Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1159Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1170Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1165Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1096Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index017
General benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
IFBenchNot measured44.1%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured52.7%Only GLM 4.5 measured
DTBench48.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
LMCA7.1%Not measuredOnly Gemma 2 27B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured73.4%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text12311430GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: instruction following12061404GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: creative writing12401395GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: English12421437GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: non-English12171417GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Chinese12211465GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: German12091407GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Japanese11751415GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Korean11741380GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: French12481418GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Spanish12281454GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Russian12341413GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: Polish12771422GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: multi-turn12241415GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: longer queries12301412GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: writing and language12491403GLM 4.5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12121404GLM 4.5
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkGemma 2 27BGLM 4.5Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.0010Fits in one request
GLM 4.5$0.0017Fits in one request

Gemma 2 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.034Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request

Gemma 2 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 2 27B$0.137Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window

Gemma 2 27B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemma 2 27B and GLM 4.5
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 2 27BZ.ai GLM 4.5
MakerGoogleZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 13, 2024July 25, 2025
Context window8K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.65$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.65$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than GLM 4.5 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.65 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or GLM 4.5?

Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or GLM 4.5?

GLM 4.5, with 131K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs GLM 4.5 comparison based on?

29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.5's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next