Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Command R

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Command R in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 13.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 55.8% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 9.2% for Command R.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Command R
ProviderAnthropicCohere
Noometry Index58.231.4
Released2026-02-042024-08-30
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.60
Results tracked6829

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Command R: 29.3 (#306)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Coding15361169
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.1%
LiveBench Coding—17.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—45.2%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Command R: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Command R: 13.8 (#331)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Hard Prompts15271164
DTBench91.2%46.4%
LMCA55.8%9.2%
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning—21.9%
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—33.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—
LiveBench—27.5%

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Command R: 28.0 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Math15191155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
LiveBench Math—19.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Command R: 31.0 (#221)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Expert15461138
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
MMLU—65.2%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Command R: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Command R: 35.7 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Non-English14891174
LMArena Chinese15511182
LMArena French15131162
LMArena German15021176
LMArena Japanese14841143
LMArena Korean14641163
LMArena Russian14971174
LMArena Spanish15101151

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Command R: 58.1 (#261)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Instruction Following15231167
LiveBench Instruction Following—55.6%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Command R: 36.3 (#231)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Longer Query15201198
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Command R: 38.2 (#254)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Command R
LMArena Text15031187
LMArena Creative Writing15051170
LMArena Multi-Turn15131163
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LiveBench Language—16.7%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Command R?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command R?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Command R better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Command R share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Command R has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper