Model comparison
Command R+ vs GLM-5.1
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 39.1 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 17.4% for Command R+ and 55.1% for GLM-5.1.
- GLM-5.1 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- GLM-5.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | GLM-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 47.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-04-07 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 200K |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $4.40 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 41 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1485 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1508 |
| SciCode | — | 43.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 57.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 887.1 |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R+: —, GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 40.9% |
| ExploitBench | — | 18.1% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,634 |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | 55.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1472 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 149.84 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 77.7% |
| CritPt | — | 4.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 69.8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1473 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 36.8% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 22.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 33.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
Knowledge GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1476 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 89.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1447 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1515 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1474 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1465 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1434 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1418 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1454 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1469 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1451 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1466 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.1 leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1453 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1472 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1592 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or GLM-5.1 better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.1 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and GLM-5.1 share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.1 has 41.