Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A+ vs GLM 5 Turbo

Command A+ costs 2.7x less per output token than GLM 5 Turbo ($1.50 vs $4.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Command A+Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
GLM 5 TurboZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
26.6
Output $/M
$4.00
vs $1.50 vs $4.00 per 1M output tokens. Command A+ is 2.7x cheaper.

Command A+ or GLM 5 Turbo: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Command A+ for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($1.50 vs $4.00 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command A+ has none yet; GLM 5 Turbo on Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), ALE-Bench and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead.

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 Turbo not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Command A+ $1.50 against GLM 5 Turbo $4.00 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
Command A+ takes 192K tokens, GLM 5 Turbo 203K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5 TurboLeader
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured33.3%Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
ALE-BenchNot measured634.0Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5 TurboLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured26.6Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5 TurboLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured98.5%Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5 TurboLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.7%Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured27.8%Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5 TurboLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1262Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1263Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1248Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1264Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1248Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1262Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1206Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1160Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
General benchmarks for Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo
BenchmarkCommand A+GLM 5 TurboLeader
IFBenchNot measured73.2%Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured71.7%Only GLM 5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 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 Turbo$0.0032Fits in one request

Command A+ costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A+$0.019Fits in one request
GLM 5 Turbo$0.072Fits in one request

Command A+ costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A+$0.075Exceeds the context window
GLM 5 Turbo$0.280Exceeds the context window

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 Turbo
SpecificationCohere Command A+Z.ai GLM 5 Turbo
MakerCohereZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 22, 2026March 15, 2026
Context window192K203K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$1.20
Output $/Mtok$1.50$4.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A+ better than GLM 5 Turbo for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command A+ for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($1.50 vs $4.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Command A+ or GLM 5 Turbo?

Command A+ costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GLM 5 Turbo costs $1.20 and $4.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A+ or GLM 5 Turbo?

GLM 5 Turbo, with 203K tokens against 192K.

Has any benchmark tested both Command A+ and GLM 5 Turbo?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command A+ has none yet; GLM 5 Turbo on Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), ALE-Bench and AA Intelligence Index. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next