Model Comparison
Command A
vs. V3.1 (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Cohere, DeepSeek
Recommended Pick
De V3.1 (Reasoning) 20 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
V3.1 (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
59.6 reasoning / $0.86/1M
Lowest Price
V3.1 (Reasoning)
$0.59/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V3.1 (Reasoning)
59.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V3.1 (Reasoning)
29.7 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
V3.1 (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
V3.1 (Reasoning) is 4.2x cheaper on input tokens than Command A.
Reasoning gap
V3.1 (Reasoning) leads Command A by 32.7 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V3.1 (Reasoning) leads Command A by 19.8 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
V3.1 (Reasoning) wins 20 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Command A
Cohere
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
V3.1 (Reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Co Command A | Top Pick De V3.1 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $2.50/1M | $0.59/1M |
| Output Cost | $10.00/1M | $1.69/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.38/1M | $0.86/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Cohere | DeepSeek |
| Release Date | Mar 13, 2025 | Aug 21, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 66.9 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 343ms | — |
| Latency | 343ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 8.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 26.9 | 59.6 |
| Intelligence | 13.5 | 27.7 |
| Coding | 9.9 | 29.7 |
| Math | 13.0 | 89.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 52.7% | 77.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 71.2% | 85.1% |
| HLE | 4.6% | 13.0% |
| LiveCodeBench | 28.7% | 78.4% |
| MATH 500 | 81.9% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 13.0% | 89.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 9.7% | — |
| SciCode | 28.1% | 39.1% |
| LCR | 18.0% | 53.3% |
| IFBench | 36.5% | 41.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 15.2% | 37.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.8% | 25.0% |
Key Takeaways
V3.1 (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.59/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V3.1 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 59.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V3.1 (Reasoning) reaches a 29.7 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Command A
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
V3.1 (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
