Model comparison
Command R vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and GLM-5.3-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where GLM-5.3-Flash leads 58.4 to 30.5.
- GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for Command R.
- GLM-5.3-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Z.ai (Zhipu) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 49.6 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-08-20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 28.8 (#301), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.7 (#26)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1506 |
| DeepSWE | — | 63.4% |
| FrontierCode | — | 31.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1614 |
| SciCode | — | 51.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 303.55 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.8% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 14% |
Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 13.3 (#329), GLM-5.3-Flash: 31.7 (#69)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1490 |
| CritPt | — | 15.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 14% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 8% |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 52.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.15 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 151.9 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#38)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 55.8% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 17.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 93.9% |
| ProofBench | — | 21% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
Knowledge GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#33)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1512 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.2% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.6 (#25)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1304 |
Multilingual GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 35.9 (#240), GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.2 (#24)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1462 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1529 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1495 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1457 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1420 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | 1443 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1472 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1471 |
Instruction Following GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 58.3 (#256), GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.8 (#17)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1480 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 36.3 (#226), GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.3 (#41)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1479 |
Writing & Preference GLM-5.3-Flash leads
Command R: 38.4 (#248), GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.4 (#49)
| Benchmark | Command R | GLM-5.3-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1471 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1440 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1471 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.6 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R or GLM-5.3-Flash?
GLM-5.3-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Command R lists at $0.15 and $0.60.
Is Command R or GLM-5.3-Flash better for coding?
GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.7 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GLM-5.3-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and GLM-5.3-Flash share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and GLM-5.3-Flash has 36.