Model comparison
Command R+ vs GLM-4.6V
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.6V in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.6V leads 27.6 to 9.2.
- GLM-4.6V is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
Side by side
| Command R+ | GLM-4.6V | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 41.3 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-12-08 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 128K |
| Max output | 4K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.90 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), GLM-4.6V: 40.9 (#128)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1390 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), GLM-4.6V: 27.6 (#115)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1368 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Not comparable
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), GLM-4.6V: —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | — |
Knowledge GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), GLM-4.6V: 38.0 (#149)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1371 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R+: —, GLM-4.6V: 34.8 (#90)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1164 |
Multilingual GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), GLM-4.6V: 48.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1359 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1340 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | — |
| LMArena German | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |
Instruction Following GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), GLM-4.6V: 71.4 (#151)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1352 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), GLM-4.6V: 41.3 (#143)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference GLM-4.6V leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), GLM-4.6V: 56.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.6V |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1377 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1347 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than GLM-4.6V?
GLM-4.6V is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ 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 R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or GLM-4.6V better for coding?
GLM-4.6V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 128K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and GLM-4.6V share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.6V has 12.