Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.7 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.7 leads 60.9 to 43.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 17.4% for Command R+ and 47.7% for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+GLM-4.7
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index32.442.0
Released2024-08-302025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K205K
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.20
Results tracked3436

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
LMArena Coding11871454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
ALE-Bench—399.48
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R+: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
SimpleBench17.4%47.7%
LMArena Hard Prompts11861443
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34143.51
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
DTBench54.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LMCA5%—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
LMArena Math11881423
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
LiveBench Math21.3%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%11.7%
LMArena Expert11741424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English12161417
LMArena Chinese12261495
LMArena French12091432
LMArena German12161424
LMArena Japanese11661439
LMArena Korean11381399
LMArena Russian12271423
LMArena Spanish11891434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following11971411
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query12301432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7
LMArena Text12291435
LMArena Creative Writing12351401
LMArena Multi-Turn12131446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command R+ or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7 does, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and GLM-4.7 share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper