Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A vs GLM 4.7 Flash

Updated October 21, 2026. 34 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Command ACohere
Coding
No data
Overall
13.1
Output $/M
$10.00
12
GLM 4.7 FlashZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
14.9
Output $/M
$0.40
22
vs boards won of 34 shared

Decision reading

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

Command A has the edge where the context window is larger, 256K against 200K tokens, and where what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Shared results
34
Command A only
26
GLM 4.7 Flash only
9
Like-for-like categories
7 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 4.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 18.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Command A 80.7% against GLM 4.7 Flash 98.8%, 18.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command A $10.00 against GLM 4.7 Flash $0.40 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
Context window
Command A takes 256K tokens, GLM 4.7 Flash 200K.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryCommand ABarsGLM 4.7 FlashTies
Coding12
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning23
Math02
Knowledge04
General99
All shared boards1222
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12
Coding benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
AA Coding Index27.8Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)35.1%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)7.8%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)17.6%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)28.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%22.0%Command A
LMArena Text: coding13301382GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT13361389GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.114.9GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
AA Agentic Index1.0Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)9.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
τ²-Bench Telecom80.7%98.8%GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond48.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)76.1%58.1%Command A
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.0%7.6%Command A
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured60.5%Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13261356GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: expert12961357GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13351369GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
AIME13.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)76.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MGSM (Vals AI)85.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
AA Math Index13.0Not measuredOnly Command A measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured58.3%Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
LMArena Text: math13001355GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work13121369GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro69.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)61.4%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedQA (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedCode (Vals AI)19.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: science13391358GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341343GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13481357GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance13151343GLM 4.7 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1194Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1208Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1135Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1123Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1121Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1178Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1038Only GLM 4.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index99
General benchmarks for Command A and GLM 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
IFBench73.9%60.8%Command A
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%41.7%Command A
DTBench61.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMCA10.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text13311351GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following13091327GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing13191296Command A
LMArena Text: English13441373GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: non-English13131330GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese13271403GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: German13421336Command A
LMArena Text: Japanese1285Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Korean12851283Command A
LMArena Text: French13511332Command A
LMArena Text: Spanish13471350GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: Russian13141333GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: Polish13241291Command A
LMArena Text: multi-turn13381342GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries13341345GLM 4.7 Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language13281320Command A
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13061304Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 24 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 4.7 Flash
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 4.7 FlashLeader
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$0.0075Fits in one request
GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0003Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A$0.155Fits in one request
GLM 4.7 Flash$0.0045Fits in one request

GLM 4.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A$0.600Fits in one request
GLM 4.7 Flash$0.017Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.7 Flash 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 4.7 Flash
SpecificationCohere Command AZ.ai GLM 4.7 Flash
MakerCohereZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025January 19, 2026
Context window256K200K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.0653
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved task$2.69Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A better than GLM 4.7 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command A has the edge where the context window is larger, 256K against 200K tokens, and where what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM 4.7 Flash?

Command A costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GLM 4.7 Flash costs $0.0653 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for Command A only.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A or GLM 4.7 Flash?

Command A, with 256K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Command A vs GLM 4.7 Flash comparison based on?

34 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GLM 4.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next