Noometry

Model comparison

Command R7B vs Grok 4.5

Grok 4.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#25); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command R7B Cohere

32.5

Unranked Sparse

Grok 4.5 xAI

55.0

Rank #25 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Grok 4.5 leads 44.4 to 26.1.
  • Command R7B is cheaper at $0.0375 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.5.
  • Grok 4.5 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 128K.
  • Command R7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command R7BGrok 4.5
ProviderCoherexAI
Noometry Index32.555.0
Released2024-12-022026-07-08
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K500K
Max output4K500K
Input $ / M tokens$0.0375$2
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$6
Results tracked152

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
DeepSWE—53.8%
FrontierCode—42.4%
LMArena WebDev—1553
SciCode—54.1%
WeirdML—46.4%
LMArena Coding—1474
ALE-Bench—1,309

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.5 leads

Command R7B: 26.1, Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
APEX-Agents—56.2%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard32.1%—
τ²-bench Banking—47.9%
PostTrainBench—23.4%
GBAEval—65.4%
GDP.pdf—14%
LMArena Search—1213
Vending-Bench 2—3,887

Reasoning Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
ARC-AGI-2—52.6%
SimpleBench—70%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—83.5%
NYT Connections (extended)—79.9%
ARC-AGI-1—87.2%
CritPt—15.4%
Chess Puzzles—36%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1462
DTBench—96.5%
LMCA—45.2%
Surface Evolver Bench—74.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.92

Math Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—57.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4—24.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—97.8%
ProofBench—31%
LMArena Math—1459

Knowledge Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
GPQA Diamond—93.4%
SimpleQA Verified—48.3%
LMArena Expert—1466

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
LMArena Vision—1288
Blueprint-Bench 2—27.3%
Furniture Assembly—22.5%
LMArena Document—1452

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
LMArena Non-English—1440
LMArena Chinese—1496
LMArena French—1456
LMArena German—1446
LMArena Japanese—1428
LMArena Korean—1404
LMArena Russian—1448
LMArena Spanish—1450

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
LMArena Instruction Following—1446

Long Context Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
LMArena Longer Query—1463

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42)

BenchmarkCommand R7BGrok 4.5
LMArena Text—1448
LMArena Creative Writing—1442
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1579
LMArena Multi-Turn—1456

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R7B better than Grok 4.5?

Grok 4.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#25); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Command R7B or Grok 4.5?

Command R7B is cheaper. It lists at $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Grok 4.5 lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.5 does, with 500K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R7B and Grok 4.5 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R7B has 1 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.5 has 52.

Related comparisons

Go deeper