Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs GLM-4.5V

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

GLM-4.5V Z.ai (Zhipu)

39.8

Rank #158 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-4.5V in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GLM-4.5V leads 52.5 to 38.2.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
  • Command R accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 64K.

Side by side

Command RGLM-4.5V
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index31.439.8
Released2024-08-302025-08-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K64K
Max output4K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$1.80
Results tracked2915

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), GLM-4.5V: 39.5 (#155)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Coding11691347
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—

Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), GLM-4.5V: 27.4 (#119)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Hard Prompts11641334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—59.8%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), GLM-4.5V: 37.4 (#159)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Math11551354
LiveBench Math19.4%—

Knowledge GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), GLM-4.5V: 37.5 (#156)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Expert11381353
MMLU65.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R: —, GLM-4.5V: 34.3 (#92)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Vision—1154

Multilingual GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 35.7 (#245), GLM-4.5V: 44.6 (#177)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Non-English11741303
LMArena Chinese11821337
LMArena Russian11741298
LMArena Spanish11511336
LMArena French1162—
LMArena German1176—
LMArena Japanese1143—
LMArena Korean1163—

Instruction Following GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), GLM-4.5V: 69.2 (#175)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Instruction Following11671311
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 36.3 (#231), GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#171)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Longer Query11981304

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5V leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), GLM-4.5V: 52.5 (#170)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.5V
LMArena Text11871333
LMArena Creative Writing11701295
LMArena Multi-Turn11631332
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than GLM-4.5V?

GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GLM-4.5V's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R or GLM-4.5V?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.

Is Command R or GLM-4.5V better for coding?

GLM-4.5V scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command R does, with 128K tokens against 64K.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5V has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper