Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs GLM-5.2

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GLM-5.2 Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.1

Rank #44 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and GLM-5.2 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-5.2 leads 51.3 to 27.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 45.8% for GLM-5.2.
  • GLM-5.2 is cheaper at $1.40 / $4.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • GLM-5.2 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command AGLM-5.2
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index36.551.1
Released2025-03-132026-06-13
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K1M
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$4.40
Results tracked2451

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GLM-5.2: 51.3 (#41)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Coding13301485
SWE-bench Verified—78.7%
DeepSWE—43.8%
FrontierCode—24.5%
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1603
SciCode—50.5%
WeirdML—70.1%
ALE-Bench—1,047

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GLM-5.2: 32.4 (#63)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
APEX-Agents—45.2%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
τ²-bench Banking—37.1%
PostTrainBench—31.7%
GBAEval—0%
Vending-Bench 2—8,314

Reasoning GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GLM-5.2: 42.3 (#52)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%62.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts13261480
DTBench61.3%93.6%
LMCA10.3%45.8%
ARC-AGI-2—22.8%
SimpleBench—58.8%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.3%
ARC-AGI-1—77%
CritPt—20.9%
Chess Puzzles—21%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—19%
Surface Evolver Bench—55.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—151.78

Math GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GLM-5.2: 55.7 (#43)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Math13001482
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%

Knowledge GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GLM-5.2: 57.1 (#40)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Expert12951486
GPQA Diamond—91.9%
SimpleQA Verified—34.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GLM-5.2: 55.8 (#26)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Non-English13131459
LMArena Chinese13271519
LMArena French13511479
LMArena German13411468
LMArena Japanese12851451
LMArena Korean12851445
LMArena Russian13141466
LMArena Spanish13471477

Instruction Following GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GLM-5.2: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Instruction Following13091465

Long Context GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GLM-5.2: 45.3 (#43)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Longer Query13341479

Writing & Preference GLM-5.2 leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GLM-5.2: 70.4 (#21)

BenchmarkCommand AGLM-5.2
LMArena Text13311470
LMArena Creative Writing13191462
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11451757
LMArena Multi-Turn13391469
EQ-Bench 4—1222

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM-5.2?

GLM-5.2 is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or GLM-5.2 better for coding?

GLM-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.3 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-5.2 does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and GLM-5.2 share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.2 has 51.

Related comparisons

Go deeper