Model comparison

Command R7B vs GPT-5.4

GPT-5.4 has enough public results to be ranked (#16); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command R7B Cohere

32.5

Unranked Sparse

GPT-5.4 OpenAI

59.4

Rank #16 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GPT-5.4 leads 46.5 to 26.1.
  • Command R7B is cheaper at $0.0375 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $15 for GPT-5.4.
  • GPT-5.4 accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
  • Command R7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command R7B and GPT-5.4 specifications
Command R7BGPT-5.4
ProviderCohereOpenAI
Noometry Index32.559.4
Released2024-12-022026-03-05
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1.05M
Max output4K128K
Input $ / M tokens$0.0375$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$15
Results tracked168

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 52.6 (#33)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
SWE-bench Verified—76.9%
DeepSWE—51.8%
LMArena WebDev—1465
SciCode—56.6%
GSO—31.4%
WeirdML—77.7%
LMArena Coding—1497
MirrorCode—15.6%
ALE-Bench—1,607
AlgoTune—1.85

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.4 leads

Command R7B: 26.1, GPT-5.4: 46.5 (#13)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
Terminal-Bench—81.8%
APEX-Agents—52.4%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard32.1%—
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 Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 61.8 (#19)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
ARC-AGI-2—74%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—63.8%
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%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1485
Mystery Game Puzzles—37%
DTBench—94.4%
LMCA—52%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.81
ForecastBench—59.5

Math Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 73.5 (#19)

Knowledge Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 65.3 (#14)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
GPQA Diamond—93.3%
Humanity's Last Exam—36.2%
SimpleQA Verified—45.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—7%
LMArena Expert—1507

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 43.7 (#20)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
LMArena Vision—1303
Blueprint-Bench 2—27.1%
Furniture Assembly—37.5%
LMArena Document—1471

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 56.2 (#23)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
LMArena Non-English—1465
LMArena Chinese—1519
LMArena French—1493
LMArena German—1472
LMArena Japanese—1485
LMArena Korean—1448
LMArena Russian—1480
LMArena Spanish—1454

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 77.1 (#27)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
LMArena Instruction Following—1469

Long Context Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 50.3 (#8)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
CL-bench—27.9%
CL-bench Life—21.7%
LMArena Longer Query—1473

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R7B: —, GPT-5.4: 71.9 (#17)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BGPT-5.4
LMArena Text—1469
LMArena Creative Writing—1439
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1840
EQ-Bench 4—1272
LMArena Multi-Turn—1482

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R7B better than GPT-5.4?

GPT-5.4 has enough public results to be ranked (#16); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Command R7B or GPT-5.4?

Command R7B is cheaper. It lists at $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 lists at $2.50 and $15.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.4 does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R7B and GPT-5.4 share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R7B has 1 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.4 has 68.

Related comparisons

Go deeper