Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command R+ (08-2024) vs GLM 4.5

GLM 4.5 costs 4.5x less per output token than Command R+ (08-2024) ($2.20 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Command R+ (08-2024)Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
GLM 4.5Z.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.20
vs $10.00 vs $2.20 per 1M output tokens. GLM 4.5 is 4.5x cheaper.

Command R+ (08-2024) or GLM 4.5: which to pick

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

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R+ (08-2024) has none yet; GLM 4.5 on SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run). 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 R+ (08-2024) not benchmarked, GLM 4.5 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 R+ (08-2024) $10.00 against GLM 4.5 $2.20 per million output tokens, 4.5x apart.
Context window
Command R+ (08-2024) takes 128K tokens, GLM 4.5 131K.

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 Index8 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured64.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.5%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.8%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured22.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
WeirdMLNot measured40.6%Only GLM 4.5 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured344.8Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1434Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1440Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured12.8Only GLM 4.5 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 R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured43.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured72.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured13.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1429Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1433Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1429Only GLM 4.5 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured57.9%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
AIMENot measured86.7%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured94.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured90.8%Only GLM 4.5 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured73.7Only GLM 4.5 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured73.7%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1427Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1430Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured81.2%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured75.6%Only GLM 4.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured61.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured72.4%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured90.0%Only GLM 4.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured83.5%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1444Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1455Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1438Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1420Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1170Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1144Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1145Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1159Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1170Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1165Only GLM 4.5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1096Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20 boards measured
General benchmarks for Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
BenchmarkCommand R+ (08-2024)GLM 4.5Leader
IFBenchNot measured44.1%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured52.7%Only GLM 4.5 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured73.4%Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1430Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1404Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1395Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1437Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1417Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1465Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1407Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1415Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1380Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1418Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1454Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1413Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1422Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1415Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1412Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1403Only GLM 4.5 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1404Only GLM 4.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 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 R+ (08-2024)$0.0075Fits in one request
GLM 4.5$0.0017Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command R+ (08-2024)$0.155Fits in one request
GLM 4.5$0.037Fits in one request

GLM 4.5 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command R+ (08-2024)$0.600Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.5$0.142Exceeds the context window

GLM 4.5 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 R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5
SpecificationCohere Command R+ (08-2024)Z.ai GLM 4.5
MakerCohereZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 30, 2024July 25, 2025
Context window128K131K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.60
Output $/Mtok$10.00$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command R+ (08-2024) better than GLM 4.5 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ (08-2024) or GLM 4.5?

Command R+ (08-2024) costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GLM 4.5 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Command R+ (08-2024) or GLM 4.5?

GLM 4.5, with 131K tokens against 128K.

Has any benchmark tested both Command R+ (08-2024) and GLM 4.5?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R+ (08-2024) has none yet; GLM 4.5 on SWE-bench Verified, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next