Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A vs GLM 5.1

Updated October 21, 2026. 51 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Command A Replace GLM 5.1
Command ACohere
Coding
No data
Overall
13.1
Output $/M
$10.00
1
GLM 5.1Z.ai
Coding
49.2
Overall
26.1
Output $/M
$4.40
50
vs boards won of 51 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command A has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Command A has the edge where the context window is larger, 256K against 205K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is CaseLaw (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model ACommand ACohereNot benchmarked1 independent benchmark$2.69 per solved taskModel BGLM 5.1Z.ai49.2/1003 independent benchmarks$0.60 per solved task
Shared results
51
Command A only
9
GLM 5.1 only
38
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 5.1 49.2 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 44.5 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AIME: Command A 13.3% against GLM 5.1 91.9%, 78.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command A $10.00 against GLM 5.1 $4.40 per million output tokens, 2.3x apart.
Context window
Command A takes 256K tokens, GLM 5.1 205K.

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 5.1Ties
Coding08
Intelligence01
Agentic work03
Reasoning06
Math03
Knowledge19
General020
All shared boards150
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index08
Coding benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1508Only GLM 5.1 measured
AA Coding Index27.855.8GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)35.1%81.4%GLM 5.1
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)7.8%76.4%GLM 5.1
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured31.5%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured25.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured0.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)17.6%56.9%GLM 5.1
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)28.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
SciCode38.5%44.8%GLM 5.1
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%43.2%GLM 5.1
WeirdMLNot measured57.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured887.1Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding13301485GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: software and IT13361484GLM 5.1
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1505Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1508Only GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
AA Intelligence Index13.126.1GLM 5.1
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured149.8Only GLM 5.1 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
AA Agentic Index1.023.9GLM 5.1
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1175Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1167Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1161Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1187Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1053Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building gamesNot measured1164Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: HTML slidesNot measured1170Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slidesNot measured1188Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1315Only GLM 5.1 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)9.0%44.8%GLM 5.1
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured27.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom80.7%97.7%GLM 5.1
APEX-AgentsNot measured40.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$5,634Only GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
GPQA Diamond48.5%84.5%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)76.1%86.8%GLM 5.1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.0%30.1%GLM 5.1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured89.9%Only GLM 5.1 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured55.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13261473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: expert12961478GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13351482GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
AIME13.3%91.9%GLM 5.1
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 measured93.3%Only GLM 5.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured36.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
ProofBenchNot measured22.2%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math13001473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work13121470GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19
Knowledge benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
MMLU Pro69.2%86.9%GLM 5.1
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.7%84.4%GLM 5.1
CaseLaw (Vals AI)64.5%51.5%Command A
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.0%64.5%GLM 5.1
TaxEval (Vals AI)61.4%71.2%GLM 5.1
MedQA (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedCode (Vals AI)19.7%41.6%GLM 5.1
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured34.0%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text: science13391478GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341474GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: legal and government13481465GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: business and finance13151452GLM 5.1
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1290Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1292Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1265Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1366Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1336Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1268Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1218Only GLM 5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1142Only GLM 5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index020
General benchmarks for Command A and GLM 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured61.8%Only GLM 5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.7%72.3%GLM 5.1
IFBench73.9%76.3%GLM 5.1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%73.7%GLM 5.1
DTBench61.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMCA10.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
ExploitBenchNot measured18.1%Only GLM 5.1 measured
LMArena Text13311463GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: instruction following13091453GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: creative writing13191453GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: English13441476GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: non-English13131448GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Chinese13271515GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: German13421467GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Japanese12851435GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Korean12851424GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: French13511470GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Spanish13471468GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Russian13141454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: Polish13241449GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn13381473GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: longer queries13341467GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: writing and language13281454GLM 5.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13061442GLM 5.1
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 5.1
BenchmarkCommand AGLM 5.1Leader
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 5.1$0.0036Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A$0.155Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.083Fits in one request

GLM 5.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A$0.600Fits in one request
GLM 5.1$0.324Exceeds the context window

GLM 5.1 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 5.1
SpecificationCohere Command AZ.ai GLM 5.1
MakerCohereZ.ai
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025April 7, 2026
Context window256K205K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$1.40
Output $/Mtok$10.00$4.40
Coding indexNot benchmarked49.2
Independent measurements behind it13
Cost per solved task$2.69$0.60
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A better than GLM 5.1 for coding?

Only GLM 5.1 has a coding score, 49.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command A has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command A has the edge where the context window is larger, 256K against 205K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is CaseLaw (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GLM 5.1?

Command A costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GLM 5.1 costs $1.40 and $4.40. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Command A costs $2.69 and GLM 5.1 $0.60.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A or GLM 5.1?

Command A, with 256K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Command A vs GLM 5.1 comparison based on?

51 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GLM 5.1's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next