Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs GLM-4.5V

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.5V in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5V leads 27.4 to 9.2.
  • GLM-4.5V is cheaper at $0.60 / $1.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Command R+ accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 64K.

Side by side

Command R+GLM-4.5V
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index32.439.8
Released2024-08-302025-08-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K64K
Max output4K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.80
Results tracked3415

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Coding11871347
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Hard Prompts11861334
SimpleBench17.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—59.8%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
DTBench54.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LMCA5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Math11881354
LiveBench Math21.3%—

Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Expert11741353
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%—
MMLU69.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R+: —, GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Vision—1154

Multilingual GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Non-English12161303
LMArena Chinese12261337
LMArena Russian12271298
LMArena Spanish11891336
LMArena French1209—
LMArena German1216—
LMArena Japanese1166—
LMArena Korean1138—

Instruction Following GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Instruction Following11971311
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Longer Query12301304

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5V leads

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5V
LMArena Text12291333
LMArena Creative Writing12351295
LMArena Multi-Turn12131332
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than GLM-4.5V?

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or GLM-4.5V?

GLM-4.5V is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $1.80 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command R+ or GLM-4.5V better for coding?

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command R+ does, with 128K tokens against 64K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and GLM-4.5V share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5V has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper