Model comparison

Command A vs Llama 3.2 3B

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 36× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 15 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Command A leads 47.6 to 24.7.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 57.1% for Command A and 21.9% for Llama 3.2 3B.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Command A and Llama 3.2 3B specifications
	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
Provider	Cohere	Meta
Noometry Index	36.5	28.9
Released	2025-03-13	2024-09-24
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	131K
Max output	8K	118K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.05
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$0.33
Results tracked	24	18

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Coding	1330	1098
Aider Polyglot	12%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	23.4%
BigCodeBench Complete	—	28.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	21.9%
BALROG	—	10.1%

Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	1095
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	—
DTBench	61.3%	—
LMCA	10.3%	—

Math Command A leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Math	1300	1126

Knowledge Command A leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Expert	1295	1090
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—

Multilingual Command A leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Non-English	1313	1019
LMArena Chinese	1327	1017
LMArena German	1341	1056
LMArena Russian	1314	949
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 3B: 56.0 (#275)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	1089

Long Context Command A leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Longer Query	1334	1100

Writing & Preference Command A leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Text	1331	1110
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	1094
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	595
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	1105

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Llama 3.2 3B?

Which is cheaper, Command A or Llama 3.2 3B?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (27.2 vs 27.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Llama 3.2 3B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.