Compare / head-to-head
Command R7BvsGLM-5.2
Command R7B and GLM-5.2 do not yet share a public benchmark, so quality cannot be compared apples-to-apples. Command R7B is 30.9x cheaper per token. GLM-5.2 has the larger context window (1M tokens).
Benchmarks from cited public sources; pricing from official pages; status from official provider feeds.
Shared benchmarks
0
no overlap yet
Cheaper per token
Command R7B
30.9x cheaper, input + output
Larger context
GLM-5.2
1M tokens
Provider uptime (30d)
100% · —
Cohere · Z.ai
Command R7B
Cohere · released 2024-12-16
text
Quality
Benchmark matrix
0 shared · 7 only Command R7B · 25 only GLM-5.2| Benchmark | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 | Δ | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reported by both · 0 | ||||
| No public benchmark is reported for both models yet. | ||||
| Only Command R7B reports · 7 | ||||
| MMLU | 65.2% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 42.4% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| BFCL Overall | 52.2% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| GPQA | 26.3% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| IFEval | 77.9% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| MBPP+ | 72% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| RepoQA | 69.6% ↗ | not reported | — | — |
| Only GLM-5.2 reports · 25 | ||||
| GPQA Diamond | not reported | 91.9% ↗epoch | — | — |
| AIME 2026 | not reported | 90% ↗matharena ⚠ | — | — |
| Agents' Last Exam (ALE-CLI) | not reported | 23.8% ↗ | — | — |
| AutomationBench v1.0.6 | not reported | 26.2% ↗ | — | — |
| CyberGym | not reported | 77.2% ↗ | — | — |
| DeepSWE v1.1 | not reported | 46.2% ↗ | — | — |
| ExploitBench | not reported | 24.4% ↗ | — | — |
| ExploitGym 2h | not reported | 29 ↗ | — | — |
| ExploitGym 6h | not reported | 39 ↗ | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 v2 (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 29.3% ↗epoch | — | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 59.2% ↗epoch | — | — |
| FrontierSWE | not reported | 67.5% ↗ | — | — |
| GDPval-AA v2 | not reported | 1508 ↗ | — | — |
| HLE (with tools) | not reported | 54.7% ↗ | — | — |
| NL2Repo | not reported | 48.9% ↗ | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 86.4% ↗epoch | — | — |
| PostTrainBench | not reported | 31.7% ↗ | — | — |
| ProgramBench (Almost Solved) | not reported | 9.5% ↗ | — | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | not reported | 34.2% ↗epoch | — | — |
| SWE-Bench Pro | not reported | 62.1% ↗ | — | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI run) | not reported | 78.7% ↗epoch | — | — |
| SWE-Marathon v1.1 | not reported | 19.4% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | not reported | 81% ↗ | — | — |
| Terminal-Bench 3.0 | not reported | 4.6% ↗ | — | — |
| Toolathlon Verified | not reported | 59.9% ↗ | — | — |
Scores tagged "epoch" or "matharena" are independent runs, used only where the lab has not published its own; ⚠ marks rows MathArena flags as released after the competition. Higher is better on every row. Δ is Command R7B minus GLM-5.2 in the benchmark's own unit. "Not reported" means the lab has not published that figure; it is not a zero. ↗ opens the source.
Specs & pricing
Side by side
Official pricing pages and model cards| Spec | Command R7B | GLM-5.2 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context window | 128K tokens | 1M tokens | GLM-5.2 |
| Max output | 4K tokens | 131K tokens | GLM-5.2 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.038 ↗ | $1.4 ↗ | Command R7B |
| Output price / 1M | $0.15 ↗ | $4.4 ↗ | Command R7B |
| Cached input / 1M | — | $0.26 ↗ | — |
| Input + output / 1M Lower is cheaper. List prices; batch, tool and regional fees excluded. | $0.188 | $5.8 | Command R7B |
| Modalities | text | text | Tie |
| Released | 2024-12-16 | 2026-06-24 | — |
| Cited benchmark scores | 7 | 26 | — |
Reliability
Provider status
Last 60 days · refreshed daily on this page · live on /statusMore matchups
Command R7B vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksMore matchups
GLM-5.2 vs …
Models sharing the most benchmarksBuilt by Respan
Which one wins on your data?
Public benchmarks are a starting point. Run Command R7B and GLM-5.2 on your own prompts with Respan evals, or route to either through one gateway key with automatic failover.