Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs GLM-4.5

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 3.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #122 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.5 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.5 leads 57.5 to 38.2.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.5.
  • GLM-4.5 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RGLM-4.5
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index31.442.0
Released2024-08-302025-07-27
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K98K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$2.20
Results tracked2927

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Coding11691434
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—54.2%
WeirdML—40.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—
ALE-Bench—344.82
AlgoTune—1.52

Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Hard Prompts11641429
Kagi LLM Benchmark—57.9%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Math11551427
LiveBench Math19.4%—

Knowledge GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Expert11381433
Humanity's Last Exam—8.3%
Confabulations—11.3%
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 35.7 (#245), GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Non-English11741417
LMArena Chinese11821465
LMArena French11621418
LMArena German11761407
LMArena Japanese11431415
LMArena Korean11631380
LMArena Russian11741414
LMArena Spanish11511454

Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Instruction Following11671404
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 36.3 (#231), GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Longer Query11981412
Fiction.LiveBench—58.3%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5 leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5
LMArena Text11871430
LMArena Creative Writing11701395
LMArena Multi-Turn11631415
Short-Story Creative Writing—73.4%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1343
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than GLM-4.5?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 3.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R or GLM-4.5?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is Command R or GLM-4.5 better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.5 does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

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

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5 has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper