Model comparison

Command A vs GLM-4.6V

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 11 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GLM-4.6V Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.3

Rank #137 Confirmed

Summary

They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6V in 7 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.6V leads 40.9 to 27.2.
GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command A and GLM-4.6V specifications
	Command A	GLM-4.6V
Provider	Cohere	Z.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index	36.5	41.3
Released	2025-03-13	2025-12-08
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	128K
Max output	8K	33K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.30
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$0.90
Results tracked	24	12

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.6V leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Coding	1330	1390
Aider Polyglot	12%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GLM-4.6V: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	—

Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	1368
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	—
DTBench	61.3%	—
LMCA	10.3%	—

Math Not comparable

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GLM-4.6V: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Math	1300	—

Knowledge Too close to call

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Expert	1295	1371
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command A: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Vision	—	1164

Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Non-English	1313	1359
LMArena Chinese	1327	1425
LMArena Russian	1314	1340
LMArena French	1351	—
LMArena German	1341	—
LMArena Japanese	1285	—
LMArena Korean	1285	—
LMArena Spanish	1347	—

Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	1352

Long Context Too close to call

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Longer Query	1334	1358

Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	GLM-4.6V
LMArena Text	1331	1377
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	1347
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	1360
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-4.6V?

GLM-4.6V is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or GLM-4.6V better for coding?

GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 128K.

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

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.