# Command R+ vs GLM-4.7

> GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-glm-4-7
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 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 43.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 17.4% for Command R+ and 47.7% for GLM-4.7.
- GLM-4.7 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- GLM-4.7 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 42.0 |
| Rank | 257 | 124 |
| Context | 128K | 205K |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $2.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R+: 29.1 (#309)
- GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1454 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1435 |
| SciCode | — | 45.1% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 399.48 |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command R+: —
- GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 33.4% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 2,377 |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 9.2 (#344)
- GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | 47.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1443 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 143.51 |
| CritPt | — | 1.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |

## Math

- Command R+: 28.9 (#242)
- GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1423 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 83.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 6% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 2.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 36.4 (#169)
- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1424 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 32.2% |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.6 (#227)
- GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1417 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1432 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1424 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1439 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1423 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1434 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.0 (#254)
- GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1411 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#219)
- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1432 |
| CL-bench | — | 15.9% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 10.9% |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.5 (#228)
- GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | GLM-4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1435 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1413 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R+ better than GLM-4.7?

GLM-4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Command R+ 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 R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

### Is Command R+ or GLM-4.7 better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 29.1 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?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.7 has 36.