Command A vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command ACohere | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.050Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.080Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 256K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 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 | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader | 46.49100% of row best · percent · Command A (FC) | 25.8356% of row best · percent · Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct (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 | 1,186.4889% of row best · rating · llama-3.1-8b-instruct; 95% CI [1182.38141125, 1190.58254982]; votes 49605; rank 313 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 60.90100% of row best · points · Cohere Command A (03-2025) · 1,177 output tokens / case | 47.9279% of row best · points · Llama 3.1 8B · 1,165 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 | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | Meta |
| Family | Command A | Llama 3 1 8b Instruct |
| Model | Command A | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct |
| Version | Command A | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2024-07-23 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 256K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 111B | 8B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | llama3.1 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Cohere (Standard) | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Command A Capabilities
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 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 Llama 3.1 8B Instruct FAQs
Is Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?+
Command A is $2.50 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is $0.050 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Command A is $10.00 and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is $0.080 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?+
Command A has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?+
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 Llama 3.1 8B Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Command A is not marked open weight; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is open weight.
Can Command A and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Command A is 8K and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is —.
Do Command A and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has 2, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?+
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.