Model comparison
Command A vs Phi-4 Mini
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and Phi-4 Mini in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command A leads 37.1 to 25.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 9.3% for Command A and 23.5% for Phi-4 Mini.
- Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command A | Phi-4 Mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 30.9 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2024-12-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 256K | 128K |
| Max output | 8K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.075 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 3 |
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), Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317)
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| SciCode | — | 10.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.9 (#40), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
Reasoning Phi-4 Mini leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195)
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
Math Not comparable
Command A: 36.2 (#171), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | — |
Knowledge Command A leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262)
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 23.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command A: 45.3 (#170), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command A: 40.6 (#151), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command A: 47.6 (#208), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Phi-4 Mini?
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 33× 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 Phi-4 Mini?
Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command A or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (27.2 vs 28.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command A does, with 256K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Phi-4 Mini share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.