Command A Reasoning vs o3
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Command A Reasoning by Cohere and o3 by OpenAI 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, o3 holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, o3 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, o3 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.
切换并对比任意模型
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Command A Reasoning
开源权重模型Cohere 推出的 Command A Reasoning 人工智能模型，具备 256K 上下文窗口，输入价格为 $2.5/百万 Token，输出价格为 $10/百万 Token，专为高质量生产环境、推理与自动化工作流打造。
$2.50 / 1M
$10.00 / 1M
256K tokens
53%
o3
深度推理模型OpenAI 推出的 o3 人工智能模型，具备 200K 上下文窗口，输入价格为 $2/百万 Token，输出价格为 $8/百万 Token，专为高质量生产环境、推理与自动化工作流打造。
$2.00 / 1M
$8.00 / 1M
200K tokens
69.1%
核心差异一览
- o3 is 1.3x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Command A Reasoning has a larger context window (256K vs 200K tokens).
- o3 is faster at 75 tok/s vs 55 tok/s.
- o3 leads on SWE-bench coding (69.1% vs 53.0%).
| Feature | Command A Reasoning | o3 |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 55 | 56 |
Provider | Cohere | OpenAI |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $2.50 / 1M | $2.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $10.00 / 1M | $8.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $2.02 / 1M | $1.55 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 256K tokens~384 A4 pages of text | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 33K | 100K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 55 tok/s | 75 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 53% | 69.1% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 70% | 76.5% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.75 / 1M | $0.50 / 1M |
各项指标谁更胜一筹？
At-a-glance decision framework权威基准测试得分对比
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.
Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
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.
延迟与响应速度
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
实时 Token 成本模拟器
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Command A Reasoning · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 由 Cohere 研发的高精度 Enterprise Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Transformer 架构，支持 256K 上下文窗口
- 极具竞争力的 API 定价（输入 $2.5/1M，输出 $10/1M），支持高速推理与工具调用
- 在代码生成、逻辑推理与多语言处理基准测试中表现出色
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 超长上下文请求需要规划 Token 成本与并发配额
- 针对特定垂直领域任务建议结合系统提示词与检索增强（RAG）以获得最佳效果
o3 · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 由 OpenAI 研发的高精度 Reasoning transformer with adjustable thinking effort 架构，支持 200K 上下文窗口
- 极具竞争力的 API 定价（输入 $2/1M，输出 $8/1M），支持高速推理与工具调用
- 在代码生成、逻辑推理与多语言处理基准测试中表现出色
Considerations & Trade-offs
- 超长上下文请求需要规划 Token 成本与并发配额
- 针对特定垂直领域任务建议结合系统提示词与检索增强（RAG）以获得最佳效果
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Command A Reasoning | o3 |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.95 | $1.35 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 45K | 48K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 22K | 26K |
技术规格参数
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Command A Reasoning | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | command-a-reasoning | o3 |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI Responses API & Chat Completions v1 |
| Release Date | 2025-08 | 2025-04 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | June 2025 | June 2024 |
| Architecture | Enterprise Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Transformer | Reasoning transformer with adjustable thinking effort |
| Parameters | Confidential (~100B+) | Confidential |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | 10,000 – 30,000 RPM (Tier 5 Enterprise) · 800,000 – 2,000,000 TPM |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Flat rate ($2.5/1M in) across full 256K window | Flat rate ($2/1M in) across full 200K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Cached input at $0.75/1M tokens | Automatic prefix caching at $0.5/1M (no extra cache-write fee) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) |
| 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 | Native Web Search tool + Hosted Code Interpreter & File Search RAG |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference (DPO) & Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 62 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 215 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | OpenAI Preparedness Framework Audited & System Card Published |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier |
| Input Modalities | text | text, vision |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Command A Reasoning vs o3: 常见问题解答 (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Command A Reasoning or o3?
o3 is more intelligent. It scores 56 compared with 55 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
o3 is faster, generating 75 tokens per second compared with 55 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
o3 is cheaper at $1.55 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $2.02 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Command A Reasoning has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.75s compared with 2.80s.
Which model has a larger context window?
Command A Reasoning has a larger context window, supporting 256K tokens compared with 200K tokens.
综合结论
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Command A Reasoning if your priority is Regulatory compliance review, complex legal contract analysis, and mathematical logic synthesis. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose o3 if your workflow prioritizes Hard maths, science and agentic coding where accuracy beats latency. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
常见问题 (FAQ)
How does Command A Reasoning compare to o3 in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Command A Reasoning costs $2.50 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas o3 costs $2.00 input and $8.00 output. Overall, o3 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 Reasoning or o3?+
Command A Reasoning supports a context window of 256K tokens (~192k words), while o3 supports 200K tokens (~150k 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 Reasoning or o3?+
Command A Reasoning scores 53% on SWE-bench Verified while o3 scores 69.1%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, o3 holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Command A Reasoning and o3?+
Command A Reasoning features native chain-of-thought extended thinking mode with configurable reasoning effort. In contrast, o3 provides chain-of-thought reasoning depth for complex math and science.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Command A Reasoning and o3?+
Command A Reasoning generates approximately 55 tokens per second, while o3 delivers 75 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, o3 provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Command A Reasoning and o3 to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to o3 to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to Command A Reasoning. 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 Command A Reasoning: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- Grok 4.20 (Reasoning) vs o3: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- OpenAI o1 vs o3: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- o3 vs Claude Opus 4.5: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- o3 vs DeepSeek-R1-0528: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
- o3 vs Magistral Medium: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed Comparison对比
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
数据来源: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs