Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs GLM-4.5

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

42.0

Rank #122 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 2 categories and GLM-4.5 in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.5 leads 41.4 to 27.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 28.8% for Command A and 57.9% for GLM-4.5.
  • GLM-4.5 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 131K.

Side by side

Command AGLM-4.5
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index36.542.0
Released2025-03-132025-07-27
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K131K
Max output8K98K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.20
Results tracked2427

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5 leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GLM-4.5: 41.4 (#125)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Coding13301434
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—54.2%
Aider Polyglot12%—
WeirdML—40.6%
ALE-Bench—344.82
AlgoTune—1.52

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GLM-4.5: —

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—

Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GLM-4.5: 28.6 (#100)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%57.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts13261429
DTBench61.3%—
LMCA10.3%—

Math GLM-4.5 leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GLM-4.5: 39.0 (#116)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Math13001427

Knowledge Command A leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GLM-4.5: 35.9 (#179)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Expert12951433
Humanity's Last Exam—8.3%
Confabulations—11.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GLM-4.5: 52.8 (#77)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Non-English13131417
LMArena Chinese13271465
LMArena French13511418
LMArena German13411407
LMArena Japanese12851415
LMArena Korean12851380
LMArena Russian13141414
LMArena Spanish13471454

Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GLM-4.5: 74.1 (#104)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Instruction Following13091404

Long Context Command A leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#201)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Longer Query13341412
Fiction.LiveBench—58.3%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5 leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GLM-4.5: 57.5 (#127)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-4.5
LMArena Text13311430
LMArena Creative Writing13191395
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11451343
LMArena Multi-Turn13391415
Short-Story Creative Writing—73.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GLM-4.5?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-4.5?

GLM-4.5 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-4.5 better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and GLM-4.5 share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5 has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper