Model Comparison
Command A
vs. Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Cohere, Nous Research
Recommended Pick
Co Command A 15 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
17.6 reasoning / $0.20/1M
Lowest Price
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
$0.13/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Command A
26.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Command A
9.9 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
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) is 19.2x cheaper on input tokens than Command A.
Speed gap
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.2x as many tokens per second as Command A.
Reasoning gap
Command A leads Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) by 9.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Command A leads Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) by 0.7 points on coding.
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
—
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
Nous Research
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Co Command A | No Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $2.50/1M | $0.13/1M |
| Output Cost | $10.00/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.38/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Cohere | Nous Research |
| Release Date | Mar 13, 2025 | Aug 27, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 78.7 tok/s | 97.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 268ms | 620ms |
| Latency | 268ms | 620ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 6.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 26.9 | 17.6 |
| Intelligence | 13.5 | 12.6 |
| Coding | 9.9 | 9.2 |
| Math | 13.0 | 11.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 52.7% | 49.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 71.2% | 66.4% |
| HLE | 4.6% | 3.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 28.7% | 26.9% |
| MATH 500 | 81.9% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 13.0% | 11.3% |
| AIME (Original) | 9.7% | — |
| SciCode | 28.1% | 27.7% |
| LCR | 18.0% | 2.0% |
| IFBench | 36.5% | 29.0% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 15.2% | 21.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.8% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.13/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Command A has the strongest reasoning profile with a 26.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Command A reaches a 9.9 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
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Hermes 4 - Llama-3.1 70B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
