Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs GLM-4.7-Flash

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

GLM-4.7-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

38.8

Rank #180 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.7-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.7-Flash leads 20.9 to 9.2.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • GLM-4.7-Flash accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+GLM-4.7-Flash
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index32.438.8
Released2024-08-302026-01-19
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K200K
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.06
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.40
Results tracked3421

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.6 (#135)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Coding11871383
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), GLM-4.7-Flash: 20.9 (#229)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11861356
SimpleBench17.4%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
DTBench54.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LMCA5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), GLM-4.7-Flash: 36.1 (#173)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Math11881355
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—58.3%
LiveBench Math21.3%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), GLM-4.7-Flash: 35.5 (#184)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%9.3%
LMArena Expert11741357
GPQA Diamond—60.5%
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), GLM-4.7-Flash: 46.5 (#158)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Non-English12161330
LMArena Chinese12261403
LMArena French12091332
LMArena German12161337
LMArena Korean11381283
LMArena Russian12271332
LMArena Spanish11891350
LMArena Japanese1166—

Instruction Following GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), GLM-4.7-Flash: 70.1 (#167)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following11971327
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), GLM-4.7-Flash: 40.9 (#148)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12301345

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7-Flash leads

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), GLM-4.7-Flash: 47.4 (#210)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.7-Flash
LMArena Text12291351
LMArena Creative Writing12351297
LMArena Multi-Turn12131342
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1125
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than GLM-4.7-Flash?

GLM-4.7-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

GLM-4.7-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

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

GLM-4.7-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.7-Flash does, with 200K tokens against 128K.

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

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper