Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Command A
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Command A in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 44.4 to 27.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 37.1% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 10.3% for Command A.
- Command A is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Cohere |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 36.5 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2025-03-13 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 256K |
| Max output | 32K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Command A: 27.2 (#322)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1330 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 12% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Command A: 35.9 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 57.1% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Command A: 18.3 (#283)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1326 |
| DTBench | 80% | 61.3% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 10.3% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 28.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Command A leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Command A: 36.2 (#171)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1300 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Command A: 37.1 (#159)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 9.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1295 |
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Command A: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Command A: 45.3 (#170)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1313 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1327 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1351 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1341 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1285 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1285 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1314 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1347 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Command A: 69.1 (#177)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1309 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Command A: 40.6 (#151)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1334 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Command A: 47.6 (#208)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1331 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1319 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1145 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Command A?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 6.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Command A?
Command A is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Command A better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command A does, with 256K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Command A share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Command A has 24.