Command A Plus vs Command A Reasoning
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Command A Plus by Cohere and Command A Reasoning by Cohere represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, Command A Reasoning holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, Command A Reasoning is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, Command A Reasoning provides an expanded memory horizon with 256K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Command A Plus leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
Changez et Comparez les Modèles
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Command A Plus
Command plus puissantde Cohere de référence 2026 multimodal phare moteur uniting visuel document raisonnement, profond chaîne de pensée, et souverain d'entreprise déploiement.
$3.00 / 1M
$12.00 / 1M
128K tokens
60.5%
Command A Reasoning
Raisonneur d'entreprisede Cohere dédié raisonnement phare intégrant étape par étape vérifiable deduction, 256K contexte, et transparent policy checks.
$2.50 / 1M
$10.00 / 1M
256K tokens
53%
Différences Clés en un Coup d’Œil
- Command A Reasoning is 1.2x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Command A Reasoning has a larger context window (256K vs 128K tokens).
- Command A Plus is faster at 68 tok/s vs 55 tok/s.
- Command A Plus leads on SWE-bench coding (60.5% vs 53.0%).
| Caractéristique | Command A Plus | Command A Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 58 | 55 |
Provider | Cohere | Cohere |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $3.00 / 1M | $2.50 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $12.00 / 1M | $10.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $2.33 / 1M | $2.02 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text | 256K tokens~384 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 33K | 33K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 68 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 60.5% | 53% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 74% | 70% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.75 / 1M | $0.75 / 1M |
Qui gagne où ?
At-a-glance decision frameworkScores de Benchmarks Vérifiés
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latence et Temps de Réponse
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Simulateur Interactif de Coût de Tokens
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Command A Plus · Strengths & Key Advantages
- de Cohere la plupart puissant modèle de fondation à date, blending vision, raisonnement, et agents
- Flawless récupération ancrage avec strict anti-hallucination citations vérification
- à poids ouverts availability pour souverain national et regulated d'entreprise déploiements
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Premium API token tarification ($3.00/$12.00)
- élevé matériel requirements pour local cluster auto-hébergement
Command A Reasoning · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Auditable chaîne de pensée vérification conçu pour regulated industries et conformité
- supérieur mathématique logique, contract contradiction checks, et algorithmic analyse
- 256K token fenêtre de contexte avec fiable citations tracking
Considerations & Trade-offs
- supérieur latence et token consumption due à étendu raisonnement traces
- texte-seulement sans natif image vision features
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Command A Plus | Command A Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.85 | $0.95 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 45K | 45K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 22K | 22K |
Spécifications Techniques
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Caractéristique | Command A Plus | Command A Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | command-a-plus | command-a-reasoning |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2026-05 | 2025-08 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | March 2026 | June 2025 |
| Architecture | Flagship Multimodal Agentic MoE | Enterprise Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Transformer |
| Parameters | Confidential (~180B+ MoE) | Confidential (~100B+) |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Flat rate ($3/1M in) across full 128K window | Flat rate ($2.5/1M in) across full 256K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Cached input at $0.75/1M tokens | Cached input at $0.75/1M tokens |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 112 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 387 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 62 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 215 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Command A Plus vs Command A Reasoning: Réponses Rapides (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Command A Plus or Command A Reasoning?
Command A Plus is more intelligent. It scores 58 compared with 55 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Command A Plus is faster, generating 68 tokens per second compared with 55 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Command A Reasoning is cheaper at $2.02 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $2.33 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Command A Plus has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.56s compared with 0.75s.
Which model has a larger context window?
Command A Reasoning has a larger context window, supporting 256K tokens compared with 128K tokens.
Verdict
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Command A Plus if your priority is Enterprise intelligence platforms, sovereign government automation, and mission-critical agent workflows. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose Command A Reasoning if your workflow prioritizes Regulatory compliance review, complex legal contract analysis, and mathematical logic synthesis. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
Questions fréquentes
How does Command A Plus compare to Command A Reasoning in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Command A Plus costs $3.00 per 1M input tokens and $12.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas Command A Reasoning costs $2.50 input and $10.00 output. Overall, Command A Reasoning is the more cost-effective model for high-volume API pipelines. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: Command A Plus or Command A Reasoning?+
Command A Plus supports a context window of 128K tokens (~96k words), while Command A Reasoning supports 256K tokens (~192k words). Therefore, Command A Reasoning can process more textual data and document context in a single prompt.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Command A Plus or Command A Reasoning?+
Command A Plus scores 60.5% on SWE-bench Verified while Command A Reasoning scores 53%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, Command A Plus holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Command A Plus and Command A Reasoning?+
Command A Plus features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, Command A Reasoning provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Command A Plus and Command A Reasoning?+
Command A Plus generates approximately 68 tokens per second, while Command A Reasoning delivers 55 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Command A Plus provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Command A Plus and Command A Reasoning to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to Command A Reasoning to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to Command A Plus. This tiered routing pattern cuts overall API bills by up to 70%.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Command A Plus vs Claude Opus 5.5: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparer
- Command A Plus vs Command A: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparer
- Command A Plus vs Gemini 4 Argon: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparer
- Command A Plus vs GPT-6 Astra: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparer
- Command A Plus vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparer
- Command A Reasoning vs o3: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparer
Les scores de benchmarks, tarifs par token et limites évoluent rapidement. Vérifiez toujours les spécifications actuelles sur la documentation officielle du fournisseur.
Sources: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs