Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs GLM-4.7

GLM-4.7 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-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

GLM-4.7 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #124 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 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 38.2.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $2.20 for GLM-4.7.
  • GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RGLM-4.7
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index31.442.0
Released2024-08-302025-12-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K205K
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$2.20
Results tracked2936

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Coding11691454
LMArena WebDev—1435
SciCode—45.1%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—
ALE-Bench—399.48

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
Terminal-Bench—33.4%
Vending-Bench 2—2,377

Reasoning GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Hard Prompts11641443
SimpleBench—47.7%
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles—6%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.51
LiveBench27.5%—

Math GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Math11551423
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—83.3%
ProofBench—6%
LiveBench Math19.4%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—2.4%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Expert11381424
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—32.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—11.7%
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 35.7 (#245), GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Non-English11741417
LMArena Chinese11821495
LMArena French11621432
LMArena German11761424
LMArena Japanese11431439
LMArena Korean11631399
LMArena Russian11741423
LMArena Spanish11511434

Instruction Following GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Instruction Following11671411
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 36.3 (#231), GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Longer Query11981432
CL-bench—15.9%
CL-bench Life—10.9%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.7 leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

BenchmarkCommand RGLM-4.7
LMArena Text11871435
LMArena Creative Writing11701401
LMArena Multi-Turn11631446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1413
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 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-4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R or GLM-4.7?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GLM-4.7 lists at $0.60 and $2.20.

Is Command R or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 29.3 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?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper