Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs GLM-5.3

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GLM-5.3 Z.ai (Zhipu)

54.8

Rank #26 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3 in 9 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.3 leads 59.5 to 27.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 55.5% for GLM-5.3.
  • GLM-5.3 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • GLM-5.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command AGLM-5.3
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index36.554.8
Released2025-03-132026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K1M
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$4.40
Results tracked2442

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GLM-5.3: 59.5 (#14)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Coding13301496
DeepSWE—69%
FrontierCode—40.1%
Aider Polyglot12%—
CursorBench—42.6%
LMArena WebDev—1622
FrontierSWE—30.2%
SciCode—59%
WeirdML—75.4%
ALE-Bench—1,317

Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GLM-5.3: 36.4 (#38)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
APEX-Agents—56.6%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
Vending-Bench 2—8,164

Reasoning GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GLM-5.3: 46.1 (#46)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Hard Prompts13261489
DTBench61.3%87.7%
LMCA10.3%55.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—74.2%
CritPt—19.1%
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—33%
Bench to the Future 3—0.15
Epoch Capabilities Index—155.61

Math GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GLM-5.3: 62.3 (#33)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Math13001489
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—68.8%
FrontierMath Tier 4—29.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
ProofBench—49%

Knowledge GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GLM-5.3: 58.3 (#37)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Expert12951516
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—41%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GLM-5.3: 55.7 (#28)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Non-English13131457
LMArena Chinese13271528
LMArena French13511499
LMArena German13411499
LMArena Japanese12851453
LMArena Korean12851472
LMArena Russian13141463
LMArena Spanish13471460

Instruction Following GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GLM-5.3: 77.5 (#23)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Instruction Following13091477

Long Context GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GLM-5.3: 45.4 (#41)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Longer Query13341482

Writing & Preference GLM-5.3 leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GLM-5.3: 75.7 (#6)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.3
LMArena Text13311471
LMArena Creative Writing13191457
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11452075
LMArena Multi-Turn13391472

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.8 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-5.3?

GLM-5.3 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-5.3 better for coding?

GLM-5.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.5 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.3 does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and GLM-5.3 share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3 has 42.

Related comparisons

Go deeper