Model comparison
Command A vs Mercury 2.5
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 65× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Command A leads 36.2 to 23.3.
- Mercury 2.5 is cheaper at $0.04 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- Mercury 2.5 accepts more context: 260K tokens versus 256K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | Mercury 2.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 33.5 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2026-09-08 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 260K |
| Max output | 8K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.04 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mercury 2.5 leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), Mercury 2.5: 39.5 (#156)
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| SciCode | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 301.65 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.9 (#40), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
Reasoning Mercury 2.5 leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), Mercury 2.5: 22.4 (#193)
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
Math Command A leads
Command A: 36.2 (#171), Mercury 2.5: 23.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 3% |
| LMArena Math | 1300 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Command A: 37.1 (#159), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command A: 45.3 (#170), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | — |
| LMArena French | 1351 | — |
| LMArena German | 1341 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command A: 69.1 (#177), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command A: 40.6 (#151), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command A: 47.6 (#208), Mercury 2.5: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Mercury 2.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Mercury 2.5?
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 33.5 on the Noometry Index. Mercury 2.5 costs 65× 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 Mercury 2.5?
Mercury 2.5 is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command A or Mercury 2.5 better for coding?
Mercury 2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.5 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mercury 2.5 does, with 260K tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Mercury 2.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2.5 has 4.