Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A+ vs GLM 5.3

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Command A+Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
GLM 5.3Z.ai
Coding
70.6
Overall
44.8
Output $/M
$4.40
vs $1.50 vs $4.40 per 1M output tokens. Command A+ is 2.9x cheaper.

Decision reading

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command A+ has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Command A+ has the edge where output tokens cost 2.9x less.

Shared results
0
Command A+ only
0
GLM 5.3 only
100
Like-for-like categories
0 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Command A+ not benchmarked, GLM 5.3 70.6 from 6 benchmarks.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
Command A+ $1.50 against GLM 5.3 $4.40 per million output tokens, 2.9x apart.
Context window
Command A+ takes 192K tokens, GLM 5.3 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index23 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
LiveBench codingNot measured82.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1621Only GLM 5.3 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured74.8Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.5%Only GLM 5.3 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured95.4%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured38.9%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured78.1%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured44.2%Only GLM 5.3 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured1.5%Only GLM 5.3 measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured68.4%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured71.5%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)Not measured20.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)Not measured47.5%Only GLM 5.3 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured72.1%Only GLM 5.3 measured
SciCodeNot measured59.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierCodeNot measured40.1%Only GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierSWENot measured30.2%Only GLM 5.3 measured
WeirdMLNot measured75.4%Only GLM 5.3 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1317.4Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1497Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1493Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1595Only GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured44.8Only GLM 5.3 measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured156.0Only GLM 5.3 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured53.1Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1194Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1189Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1255Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench researchNot measured73.2%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench browserNot measured0.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured35.9%Only GLM 5.3 measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured9.2%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured55.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured39.7%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured49.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured14.6%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured56.3%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured5.7%Only GLM 5.3 measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured56.6%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$8,164Only GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured88.1%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench reasoningNot measured85.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured23.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured91.7%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured42.3%Only GLM 5.3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured90.9%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured37.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured33.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1490Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1514Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1496Only GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured91.1%Only GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured68.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured29.3%Only GLM 5.3 measured
ProofBenchNot measured49.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1495Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1497Only GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured72.4%Only GLM 5.3 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured42.9%Only GLM 5.3 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured41.0%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1498Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1481Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1473Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1459Only GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1295Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1314Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1311Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1259Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1332Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1304Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1293Only GLM 5.3 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1213Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench designNot measured77.3%Only GLM 5.3 measured
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
Vals IndexNot measured59.7%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured70.2%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured68.5%Only GLM 5.3 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured88.8%Only GLM 5.3 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured79.7%Only GLM 5.3 measured
DTBenchNot measured87.7%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMCANot measured55.5%Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1474Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1479Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1458Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1482Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1459Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1532Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1488Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1460Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1460Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1503Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1462Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1469Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1466Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1472Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1483Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1469Only GLM 5.3 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1447Only GLM 5.3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5.3
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5.3Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Command A+$0.0010Fits in one request
GLM 5.3$0.0036Fits in one request

Command A+ costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A+$0.019Fits in one request
GLM 5.3$0.083Fits in one request

Command A+ costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A+$0.075Exceeds the context window
GLM 5.3$0.324Fits in one request

Command A+ costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Command A+ and GLM 5.3
SpecificationCohere Command A+Z.ai GLM 5.3
MakerCohereZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2026August 18, 2026
Context window192K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.30$1.40
Output $/Mtok$1.50$4.40
Coding indexNot benchmarked70.6
Independent measurements behind it06
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.36
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A+ better than GLM 5.3 for coding?

Only GLM 5.3 has a coding score, 70.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command A+ has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command A+ has the edge where output tokens cost 2.9x less.

Which is cheaper, Command A+ or GLM 5.3?

Command A+ costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM 5.3 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 5.3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A+ or GLM 5.3?

GLM 5.3, with 1.05M tokens against 192K.

How many benchmarks is the Command A+ vs GLM 5.3 comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A+'s coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 5.3's on 6. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next