Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs GLM-4.5

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 32.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.0

Rank #251 Confirmed

GLM-4.5 Z.ai (Zhipu)

41.4

Rank #125 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 1 category and GLM-4.5 in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5 leads 27.7 to 8.9.
  • GLM-4.5 is cheaper at $0.60 / $2.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • GLM-4.5 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+GLM-4.5
ProviderCohereZ.ai (Zhipu)
Noometry Index32.041.4
Released2024-08-302025-07-27
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K98K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.20
Results tracked3427

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

Category by category

Coding GLM-4.5 leads

Command R+: 28.6 (#304), GLM-4.5: 41.1 (#121)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Coding11871434
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—54.2%
WeirdML—40.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
ALE-Bench—344.82
AlgoTune—1.52
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Reasoning GLM-4.5 leads

Command R+: 8.9 (#341), GLM-4.5: 27.7 (#99)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Hard Prompts11861430
SimpleBench17.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—57.9%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
DTBench54.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LMCA5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.28—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math GLM-4.5 leads

Command R+: 26.6 (#239), GLM-4.5: 36.3 (#119)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Math11881427
LiveBench Math21.3%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Command R+: 35.9 (#165), GLM-4.5: 35.5 (#172)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Expert11741433
Humanity's Last Exam—8.3%
Confabulations—11.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%—
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual GLM-4.5 leads

Command R+: 38.8 (#222), GLM-4.5: 53.0 (#74)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Non-English12161417
LMArena Chinese12261465
LMArena French12081423
LMArena German12161406
LMArena Japanese11661416
LMArena Korean11381382
LMArena Russian12271414
LMArena Spanish11891454

Instruction Following GLM-4.5 leads

Command R+: 60.2 (#249), GLM-4.5: 74.3 (#100)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Instruction Following11971405
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—

Long Context Too close to call

Command R+: 37.3 (#214), GLM-4.5: 38.2 (#196)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Longer Query12311413
Fiction.LiveBench—58.3%

Writing & Preference GLM-4.5 leads

Command R+: 43.7 (#223), GLM-4.5: 57.7 (#121)

BenchmarkCommand R+GLM-4.5
LMArena Text12291430
LMArena Creative Writing12351395
LMArena Multi-Turn12131415
Short-Story Creative Writing—73.4%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1343
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than GLM-4.5?

GLM-4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 32.0 on the Noometry Index.

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

Is Command R+ or GLM-4.5 better for coding?

GLM-4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.1 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GLM-4.5 does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and GLM-4.5 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and GLM-4.5 has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper