Model comparison
Command A vs GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.6 Sol in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 74.8 to 18.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 59.2% for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- Command A is cheaper at $2.50 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- GPT-5.6 Sol 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-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 65.0 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2026-07-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 8K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $4 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $20 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 65 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1498 |
| DeepSWE | — | 72.7% |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| CursorBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1618 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 32.2% |
| SciCode | — | 57.1% |
| GSO | — | 76.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 89.4% |
| MirrorCode | — | 20% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 2,177 |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 35.9 (#40), GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 51.4% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 27.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 46.9% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 36.2% |
| BALROG | — | 60% |
| GBAEval | — | 52.6% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1257 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,619 |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | 67% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1484 |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 96% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 59.2% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 92.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 71.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 93.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 97.5% |
| CritPt | — | 32.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 64% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 37.1% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 44.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 58% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 93.1% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 161.66 |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 36.2 (#171), GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1474 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 89.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 82.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |
| ProofBench | — | 83% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | — | 0% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 12.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1516 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 93.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 69.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command A: —, GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1281 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.6% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1483 |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 45.3 (#170), GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1452 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1527 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1477 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1476 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1471 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1442 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1468 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1441 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 69.1 (#177), GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1482 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 40.6 (#151), GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1480 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
Command A: 47.6 (#208), GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12)
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1457 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1448 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | 1972 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1250 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index. Command A costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-5.6 Sol?
Command A is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Sol lists at $4 and $20.
Is Command A or GPT-5.6 Sol better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and GPT-5.6 Sol share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.6 Sol has 65.