Command A vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command ACohere |  Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.30Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $2.50Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 256K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader | 46.4991% of row best · percent · Command A (FC) | 50.90100% of row best · percent · Gemini-2.5-Flash (Prompt) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,330.8794% of row best · rating · command-a-03-2025; 95% CI [1327.41159924, 1334.32729730]; votes 55449; rank 211 | 1,417.27100% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1414.83704531, 1419.70406968]; votes 122732; rank 116 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 60.9084% of row best · points · Cohere Command A (03-2025) · 1,177 output tokens / case | 72.17100% of row best · points · Gemini 2.5 Flash · 4,399 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Command A | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Command A | Gemini 2 5 |
| Model | Command A | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
| Version | Command A | Gemini 2.5 Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | 2025-01-01 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 256K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 111B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Cohere (Standard) | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Command A Capabilities
Gemini 2.5 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Command ACohere | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Command A vs Gemini 2.5 Flash FAQs
Is Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and Gemini 2.5 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+
Command A is $2.50 and Gemini 2.5 Flash is $0.30 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Command A is $10.00 and Gemini 2.5 Flash is $2.50 per million tokens, so Gemini 2.5 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Command A is not marked open weight; Gemini 2.5 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Command A and Gemini 2.5 Flash understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; Gemini 2.5 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Command A supports 8K and Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 66K output tokens.
Do Command A and Gemini 2.5 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. Gemini 2.5 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; Gemini 2.5 Flash has 2, so Gemini 2.5 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A or Gemini 2.5 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.