Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs GLM-4.6

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GLM-4.6 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #135 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.6 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.6 leads 61.1 to 47.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 28.8% for Command A and 47.4% for GLM-4.6.
  • GLM-4.6 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 205K.

Side by side

Command AGLM-4.6
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index36.541.4
Released2025-03-132025-09-30
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K205K
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.20
Results tracked2429

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GLM-4.6: 40.1 (#148)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
LMArena Coding13301449
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—55.4%
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1340
SciCode—38.4%
ALE-Bench—340.82

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GLM-4.6: 32.3 (#66)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%72.4%
Terminal-Bench—24.5%

Reasoning GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GLM-4.6: 23.7 (#172)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%47.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts13261440
CritPt—1.1%
DTBench61.3%—
LMCA10.3%—

Math GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GLM-4.6: 39.1 (#111)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
LMArena Math13001432
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—3.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GLM-4.6: 40.2 (#124)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%9.5%
LMArena Expert12951431

Multilingual GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GLM-4.6: 53.5 (#66)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
LMArena Non-English13131426
LMArena Chinese13271499
LMArena French13511459
LMArena German13411447
LMArena Japanese12851393
LMArena Korean12851400
LMArena Russian13141419
LMArena Spanish13471436

Instruction Following GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GLM-4.6: 74.3 (#98)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
LMArena Instruction Following13091410

Long Context GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GLM-4.6: 43.4 (#94)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
LMArena Longer Query13341422

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6 leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GLM-4.6: 61.1 (#90)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.6
LMArena Text13311440
LMArena Creative Writing13191411
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11451411
LMArena Multi-Turn13391427

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-4.6?

GLM-4.6 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or GLM-4.6 better for coding?

GLM-4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and GLM-4.6 share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6 has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper