Model comparison
Command A vs GPT-4.1 nano
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 9 categories and GPT-4.1 nano in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Command A leads 40.6 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 57.1% for Command A and 33% for GPT-4.1 nano.
- GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 256K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | GPT-4.1 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 27.9 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2025-04-14 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 8K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 38 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Command A leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | 8.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1306 |
| SciCode | — | 25.9% |
| WeirdML | — | 19% |
Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads
Command A: 35.9 (#40), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | 33% |
Reasoning Command A leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | 33.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1286 |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 52.5% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 5.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129.62 |
Math Command A leads
Command A: 36.2 (#171), GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1274 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 28.9% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 36.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 70% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1% |
Knowledge Command A leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1272 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 55% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command A: —, GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1063 |
Multilingual Command A leads
Command A: 45.3 (#170), GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1260 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1270 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1288 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1198 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1261 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | — |
Instruction Following Command A leads
Command A: 69.1 (#177), GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1267 |
| IFEval | — | 84.3% |
Long Context Command A leads
Command A: 40.6 (#151), GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1283 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 25% |
Writing & Preference Command A leads
Command A: 47.6 (#208), GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-4.1 nano |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1285 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1260 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | 946 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1277 |
| WildBench | — | 81.2% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than GPT-4.1 nano?
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-4.1 nano?
GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command A or GPT-4.1 nano better for coding?
Command A scores higher on coding benchmarks: 27.2 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and GPT-4.1 nano share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GPT-4.1 nano has 38.