Model comparison
Command A vs o1
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1'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 2 categories and o1 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o1 leads 46.1 to 27.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 12% for Command A and 61.7% for o1.
- Command A is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 200K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 200K |
| Max output | 8K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $60 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | 61.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1367 |
| WeirdML | — | 47.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads
Command A: 35.9 (#40), o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
Reasoning o1 leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1371 |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 74.7% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 22.3% |
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 141.91 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math Too close to call
Command A: 36.2 (#171), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1388 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge o1 leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1361 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command A: —, o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual o1 leads
Command A: 45.3 (#170), o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1394 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1344 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1345 |
Instruction Following o1 leads
Command A: 69.1 (#177), o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1367 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
Long Context o1 leads
Command A: 40.6 (#151), o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1378 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference o1 leads
Command A: 47.6 (#208), o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Command A | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1348 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1369 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than o1?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command A or o1?
Command A is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is Command A or o1 better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command A does, with 256K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and o1 share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.