Command A vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Command A | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v1.4 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #10 of 4678.5 score · 2/3-source partial |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 45-model eligible cohort | #28 of 45$0.161 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.1 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #10 of 3857.2 score · 2/3-source intelligence |
Ranks come from current available eligible cohorts. Intelligence may use a labeled two-of-three partial core. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-01-011508720696 · arena_rating · leader | 1,330.7990% of row best · rating · command-a-03-2025; 95% CI [1327.33626503, 1334.25009199]; votes 55434; rank 208 | 1,480.10100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.1-pro-preview; 95% CI [1476.89767236, 1483.30025658]; votes 102763; rank 11 |
| ToneBench2026-08-28-10-task-cd9819ab6e4d · overall_score · leader | 60.9076% of row best · points · Cohere Command A (03-2025) · 1,177 output tokens / case | 79.89100% of row best · points · Gemini 3.1 Pro (high thinking) · 10,009 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.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Command A | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Command A | Gemini 3 |
| Model | Command A | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Version | Command A | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
| Lifecycle | active | preview |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document |
| 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 |
13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Command A Capabilities
Gemini 3.1 Pro Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related 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 |  DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | 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 |
Command ACohere | vs | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Command A vs Gemini 3.1 Pro FAQs
Is Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and Gemini 3.1 Pro, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Command A is $2.50 and Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.00 per million tokens, so Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheaper on this metric. Command A is $10.00 and Gemini 3.1 Pro is $12.00 per million tokens, so Command A is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 3.1 Pro be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Command A is not marked open weight; Gemini 3.1 Pro is not marked open weight.
Can Command A and Gemini 3.1 Pro understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; Gemini 3.1 Pro is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger sourced maximum output: Command A supports 8K and Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 66K output tokens.
Do Command A and Gemini 3.1 Pro support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. Gemini 3.1 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; Gemini 3.1 Pro has 2, so Gemini 3.1 Pro has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A or Gemini 3.1 Pro?+
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.