Model comparison
Command A vs GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.4 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.4 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.4 leads 61.8 to 18.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 52% for GPT-5.4.
- Command A is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $15 for GPT-5.4.
- GPT-5.4 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 256K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | GPT-5.4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 59.4 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2026-03-05 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 8K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $15 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 68 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), GPT-5.4: 52.6 (#33)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1497 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.9% |
| DeepSWE | — | 51.8% |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1465 |
| SciCode | — | 56.6% |
| GSO | — | 31.4% |
| WeirdML | — | 77.7% |
| MirrorCode | — | 15.6% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,607 |
| AlgoTune | — | 1.85 |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 35.9 (#40), GPT-5.4: 46.5 (#13)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 81.8% |
| APEX-Agents | — | 52.4% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 39.4% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 35.1% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 19% |
| GBAEval | — | 45.1% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1197 |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 74.3% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 6,144 |
Reasoning GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), GPT-5.4: 61.8 (#19)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | 63.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1485 |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 94.4% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 52% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 74% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 91.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 93.7% |
| CritPt | — | 23.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 44% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 16% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 80% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 25.4% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 37% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 156.81 |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.5 |
Math GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 36.2 (#171), GPT-5.4: 73.5 (#19)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 78.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 49% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 83.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 97.8% |
| ProofBench | — | 56% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 47.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 27.1% |
Knowledge GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), GPT-5.4: 65.3 (#14)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1507 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 93.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 36.2% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 45.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command A: —, GPT-5.4: 43.7 (#20)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1303 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 27.1% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 37.5% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1471 |
Multilingual GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 45.3 (#170), GPT-5.4: 56.2 (#23)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1465 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1519 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1493 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1472 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1485 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1448 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1480 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1454 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 69.1 (#177), GPT-5.4: 77.1 (#27)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1469 |
Long Context GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 40.6 (#151), GPT-5.4: 50.3 (#8)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1473 |
| CL-bench | — | 27.9% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 21.7% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.4 leads
Command A: 47.6 (#208), GPT-5.4: 71.9 (#17)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1469 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1439 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | 1840 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1272 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.4 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-5.4?
Command A is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 lists at $2.50 and $15.
Is Command A or GPT-5.4 better for coding?
GPT-5.4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.6 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.4 does, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and GPT-5.4 share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 has 68.