Model comparison

Command A vs GPT-5.1-Codex

GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

GPT-5.1-Codex OpenAI

38.6

Rank #186 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.1-Codex leads 41.9 to 27.2.
  • GPT-5.1-Codex is cheaper at $1.25 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 256K.
  • Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command A and GPT-5.1-Codex specifications
Command AGPT-5.1-Codex
ProviderCohereOpenAI
Noometry Index36.538.6
Released2025-03-132025-11-12
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window256K400K
Max output8K128K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$1.25
Output $ / M tokens$10$10
Results tracked246

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.9 (#116)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—66%
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1337
LMArena Coding1330—
ALE-Bench—1,245

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.1-Codex leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), GPT-5.1-Codex: 38.0 (#33)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
Terminal-Bench—60.4%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
METR Time Horizons—70.8%

Reasoning Not comparable

Command A: 18.3 (#283), GPT-5.1-Codex: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
DTBench61.3%—
LMCA10.3%—

Math Command A leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), GPT-5.1-Codex: 30.3 (#235)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
ProofBench—9%
LMArena Math1300—

Knowledge Not comparable

Command A: 37.1 (#159), GPT-5.1-Codex: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1295—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), GPT-5.1-Codex: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
LMArena Non-English1313—
LMArena Chinese1327—
LMArena French1351—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Japanese1285—
LMArena Korean1285—
LMArena Russian1314—
LMArena Spanish1347—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.1 (#177), GPT-5.1-Codex: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#151), GPT-5.1-Codex: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), GPT-5.1-Codex: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-5.1-Codex
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1339—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than GPT-5.1-Codex?

GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-5.1-Codex?

GPT-5.1-Codex is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or GPT-5.1-Codex better for coding?

GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and GPT-5.1-Codex share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1-Codex has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper