Model comparison
Command R vs GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
CohereSummary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.1 leads 39.9 to 13.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Math: 19.4% for Command R and 94.5% for GPT-5.1.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | GPT-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 48.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-11-13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 400K |
| Max output | 4K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 63 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 28.8 (#301), GPT-5.1: 46.9 (#59)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | 72.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1454 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 68% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1395 |
| SciCode | — | 43.3% |
| GSO | — | 13.7% |
| WeirdML | — | 60.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,192 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, GPT-5.1: 32.5 (#55)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 47.6% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 42.8% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1199 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 1,473 |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 13.3 (#329), GPT-5.1: 39.9 (#50)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | 95.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | 72.1% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 43.9% |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | 78.8% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 17.6% |
| SimpleBench | — | 53.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 72.8% |
| CritPt | — | 4.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 32% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 11.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.66 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.1 |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), GPT-5.1: 50.3 (#45)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | 94.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1446 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 88.6% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 46.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 31% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), GPT-5.1: 50.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1470 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 23.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 57.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 44.2% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, GPT-5.1: 44.0 (#17)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1250 |
| VPCT | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1403 |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 35.9 (#240), GPT-5.1: 54.0 (#51)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1451 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1439 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1453 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1435 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1430 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 58.3 (#256), GPT-5.1: 84.0 (#1)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1442 |
| IFEval | — | 93.5% |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 36.3 (#226), GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1448 |
| CL-bench | — | 23.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 17.3% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
Command R: 38.4 (#248), GPT-5.1: 64.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | Command R | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1443 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1427 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1449 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | 80.2% |
| WildBench | — | 86.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than GPT-5.1?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 48.8 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or GPT-5.1?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is Command R or GPT-5.1 better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.9 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and GPT-5.1 share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1 has 63.