# Command R7B vs GLM-5.2

> GLM-5.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#44); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r7b-vs-glm-5-2
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GLM-5.2 leads 32.4 to 26.1.
- Command R7B is cheaper at $0.0375 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $1.40 / $4.40 for GLM-5.2.
- GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 51.1 |
| Rank | — | 44 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.0375 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $4.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 78.7% |
| DeepSWE | — | 43.8% |
| FrontierCode | — | 24.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1603 |
| SciCode | — | 50.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 70.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1485 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,047 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command R7B: 26.1
- GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 45.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 32.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 37.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 31.7% |
| GBAEval | — | 0% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 8,314 |

## Reasoning

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 22.8% |
| SimpleBench | — | 58.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 62.6% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 77% |
| CritPt | — | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1480 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| DTBench | — | 93.6% |
| LMCA | — | 45.8% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 55.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.78 |

## Math

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 59.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 29.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 67.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.4% |
| ProofBench | — | 35% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1482 |

## Knowledge

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 91.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 34.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1486 |

## Multilingual

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1459 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1519 |
| LMArena French | — | 1479 |
| LMArena German | — | 1468 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1451 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1445 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1466 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1477 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1465 |

## Long Context

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1479 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R7B: —
- GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1470 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1462 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1757 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1469 |

## FAQ

### Is Command R7B better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 has enough public results to be ranked (#44); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Which is cheaper, Command R7B or GLM-5.2?

Command R7B is cheaper. It lists at $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM-5.2 lists at $1.40 and $4.40.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Command R7B and GLM-5.2 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R7B has 1 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.