Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command R7B (12-2024) vs GLM 4.6

Command R7B (12-2024) costs 14.7x less per output token than GLM 4.6 ($0.15 vs $2.20 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

Command R7B (12-2024)Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
0
GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

Command R7B (12-2024) or GLM 4.6: which to pick

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command R7B (12-2024) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Command R7B (12-2024) for output tokens 14.7x cheaper ($0.15 vs $2.20 per million).

Shared results
1
Command R7B (12-2024) only
0
GLM 4.6 only
68
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 R7B (12-2024) not benchmarked, GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 40.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL): Command R7B (12-2024) 32.1% against GLM 4.6 72.4%, 40.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command R7B (12-2024) $0.15 against GLM 4.6 $2.20 per million output tokens, 14.7x apart.
Context window
Command R7B (12-2024) takes 128K tokens, GLM 4.6 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 R7B (12-2024)BarsGLM 4.6Ties
Agentic work01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured68.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1341Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured45.8Only GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured81.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured3.1%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured69.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured28.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured24.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured340.8Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1449Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1455Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1350Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured18.5Only GLM 4.6 measured
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 R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1029Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1096Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1084Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1180Only GLM 4.6 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured76.9%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)32.1%72.4%GLM 4.6
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured48.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured74.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured78.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured14.5%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1440Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1432Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1445Only GLM 4.6 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured45.7%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
AIMENot measured92.7%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured89.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured86.0Only GLM 4.6 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1432Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1447Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
MMLU ProNot measured82.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.6%Only GLM 4.6 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured56.8%Only GLM 4.6 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured66.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured92.2%Only GLM 4.6 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured82.9%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1456Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1455Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1448Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1416Only GLM 4.6 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, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1174Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1148Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1151Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1161Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1129Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1166Only GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1109Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
IFBenchNot measured43.4%Only GLM 4.6 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured54.0%Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1440Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1410Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1412Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1449Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1426Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1499Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1447Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1393Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1400Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1459Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1436Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1418Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1447Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1427Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1422Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1415Only GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1409Only GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)GLM 4.6Leader
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 R7B (12-2024)$0.0001Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request

Command R7B (12-2024) costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command R7B (12-2024)$0.0023Fits in one request
GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request

Command R7B (12-2024) costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command R7B (12-2024)$0.0090Exceeds the context window
GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window

Command R7B (12-2024) 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 R7B (12-2024) and GLM 4.6
SpecificationCohere Command R7B (12-2024)Z.ai GLM 4.6
MakerCohereZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 14, 2024September 30, 2025
Context window128K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.0375$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.15$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked8.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command R7B (12-2024) better than GLM 4.6 for coding?

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command R7B (12-2024) has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command R7B (12-2024) for output tokens 14.7x cheaper ($0.15 vs $2.20 per million).

Which is cheaper, Command R7B (12-2024) or GLM 4.6?

Command R7B (12-2024) costs $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Command R7B (12-2024) or GLM 4.6?

GLM 4.6, with 205K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Command R7B (12-2024) vs GLM 4.6 comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command R7B (12-2024)'s coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.6's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next