Command A vs GPT-5 Nano
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command ACohere |  GPT-5 NanoOpenAI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #46 of 460.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing LiveBench · full-core range 0.0–33.3 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.025Openrouter ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.20Openrouter ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 256K | 400K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 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 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader | 46.49100% of row best · percent · Command A (FC) | 27.5559% of row best · percent · GPT-5-nano-2025-08-07 (Prompt) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,330.87100% of row best · rating · command-a-03-2025; 95% CI [1327.41159924, 1334.32729730]; votes 55449; rank 211 | 1,319.7299% of row best · rating · gpt-5-nano-high; 95% CI [1312.87607943, 1326.57003978]; votes 8128; rank 218 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 60.9099% of row best · points · Cohere Command A (03-2025) · 1,177 output tokens / case | 61.62100% of row best · points · GPT-5 nano · 7,465 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
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 | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Family | Command A | Gpt 5 |
| Model | Command A | GPT-5 Nano |
| Version | Command A | GPT-5 Nano |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-08-07 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | 2024-05-31 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 256K | 400K |
| 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) | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Command A Capabilities
GPT-5 Nano 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 GPT-5 Nano FAQs
Is Command A or GPT-5 Nano better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and GPT-5 Nano, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-5 Nano?+
Command A is $2.50 and GPT-5 Nano is $0.025 per million tokens, so GPT-5 Nano is cheaper on this metric. Command A is $10.00 and GPT-5 Nano is $0.20 per million tokens, so GPT-5 Nano is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Command A or GPT-5 Nano?+
GPT-5 Nano has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and GPT-5 Nano supports 400K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or GPT-5 Nano?+
Command A 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 GPT-5 Nano be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Command A is not marked open weight; GPT-5 Nano is not marked open weight.
Can Command A and GPT-5 Nano understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; GPT-5 Nano is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or GPT-5 Nano?+
GPT-5 Nano has the larger sourced maximum output: Command A supports 8K and GPT-5 Nano supports 128K output tokens.
Do Command A and GPT-5 Nano support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. GPT-5 Nano: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or GPT-5 Nano?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; GPT-5 Nano has 2, so GPT-5 Nano has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A or GPT-5 Nano?+
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.