Model comparison

Command A vs Llama 3.2 1B

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 62× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 15 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command A leads 37.1 to 7.2.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 57.1% for Command A and 10.8% for Llama 3.2 1B.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Command A and Llama 3.2 1B specifications
	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
Provider	Cohere	Meta
Noometry Index	36.5	20.1
Released	2025-03-13	2024-09-24
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	60K
Max output	8K	54K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.027
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$0.20
Results tracked	24	22

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

Category by category

Coding Command A leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Coding	1330	1070
Aider Polyglot	12%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	8.2%
BigCodeBench Complete	—	11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	10.8%
BALROG	—	6.6%

Reasoning Command A leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	1044
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	0%
DTBench	61.3%	—
LMCA	10.3%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	101.99

Math Command A leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Math	1300	1086
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	0.6%

Knowledge Command A leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Expert	1295	1007
GPQA Diamond	—	23.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—

Multilingual Command A leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English	1313	973
LMArena Chinese	1327	959
LMArena German	1341	1014
LMArena Russian	1314	941
LMArena French	1351	—
LMArena Japanese	1285	—
LMArena Korean	1285	—
LMArena Spanish	1347	—

Instruction Following Command A leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	1031

Long Context Command A leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query	1334	1050

Writing & Preference Command A leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text	1331	1055
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	1033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	200
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	1030

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Which is cheaper, Command A or Llama 3.2 1B?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Command A scores higher on coding benchmarks: 27.2 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Llama 3.2 1B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.