Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs GLM-5.1

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GLM-5.1 Z.ai (Zhipu)

47.8

Rank #59 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.1 leads 48.7 to 27.2.
  • GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

Command AGLM-5.1
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index36.547.8
Released2025-03-132026-04-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K200K
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$4.40
Results tracked2441

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Coding13301485
SWE-bench Verified—74.2%
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1508
SciCode—43.8%
WeirdML—57.1%
ALE-Bench—887.1

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
APEX-Agents—40.9%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
ExploitBench—18.1%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—5,634

Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Hard Prompts13261472
SimpleBench—55.1%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—77.7%
CritPt—4.6%
Chess Puzzles—19%
Thematic Generalization—69.8%
DTBench61.3%—
LMCA10.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.84

Math GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Math13001473
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—36.8%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—67.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
ProofBench—22.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—33.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—12.5%

Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Expert12951476
GPQA Diamond—89.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Non-English13131447
LMArena Chinese13271515
LMArena French13511474
LMArena German13411465
LMArena Japanese12851434
LMArena Korean12851418
LMArena Russian13141454
LMArena Spanish13471469

Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Instruction Following13091451

Long Context GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Longer Query13341466

Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.1
LMArena Text13311461
LMArena Creative Writing13191453
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11451592
LMArena Multi-Turn13391472

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-5.1?

GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or GLM-5.1 better for coding?

GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and GLM-5.1 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.

Related comparisons

Go deeper