# Command A vs GLM-4.7

> GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-a-vs-glm-4-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.7 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.7 leads 43.6 to 26.8.
- GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 205K.

## Snapshot

| | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 41.7 |
| Rank | 212 | 117 |
| Context | 256K | 205K |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $2.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command A: 26.8 (#317)
- GLM-4.7: 43.6 (#74)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1331 | 1454 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1435 |
| SciCode | — | 45.1% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 399.48 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command A: 35.7 (#36)
- GLM-4.7: 26.4 (#96)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 33.4% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 2,377 |

## Reasoning

- Command A: 17.7 (#276)
- GLM-4.7: 23.7 (#161)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1443 |
| SimpleBench | — | 47.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| CritPt | — | 1.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 6% |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.53 |

## Math

- Command A: 33.5 (#172)
- GLM-4.7: 37.7 (#92)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1423 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 83.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 6% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 2.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Command A: 36.5 (#157)
- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#74)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1424 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 32.2% |

## Multilingual

- Command A: 45.5 (#166)
- GLM-4.7: 53.0 (#75)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1417 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1352 | 1432 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1426 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1283 | 1439 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1346 | 1433 |

## Instruction Following

- Command A: 69.3 (#172)
- GLM-4.7: 74.6 (#90)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1411 |

## Long Context

- Command A: 40.6 (#147)
- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#111)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1432 |
| CL-bench | — | 15.9% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 10.9% |

## Writing & Preference

- Command A: 47.8 (#204)
- GLM-4.7: 61.1 (#89)

| Benchmark | Command A | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1436 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1401 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | 1413 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1338 | 1446 |

## FAQ

### Is Command A better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

### Is Command A or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.6 versus 26.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 205K.

### How many benchmarks do Command A and GLM-4.7 share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.