Command A vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct

At a Glance

Compare
Command ACohere
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Cohere · Aug 29, 2026$0.10Deepinfra · Sep 23, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$10.00Cohere · Aug 29, 2026$0.30Deepinfra · Sep 23, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens256K10,000K
Model facts checkedAug 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkCommand ALlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader46.49100% of row best · percent · Command A (FC)28.1361% of row best · percent · Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct (FC)
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,330.87100% of row best · rating · command-a-03-2025; 95% CI [1327.41159924, 1334.32729730]; votes 55449; rank 2111,279.2996% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 259
ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified60.90100% of row best · points · Cohere Command A (03-2025) · 1,177 output tokens / case47.3278% of row best · points · Llama 4 Scout · 696 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above2 benchmark winsOverall lead0 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

FieldCommand ALlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct
DeveloperCohereMeta
FamilyCommand ALlama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct
ModelCommand ALlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct
VersionCommand ALlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2025-04-05
Knowledge cutoff2024-06-01Unknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window256K10,000K
Total parameters111B108.6B
Active parametersUnknown17B
LicenseUnknownother
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessCohere (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitiesagents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, toolschat, generation, tools

Command A Capabilities

agentschatcitationsmultilingualragstructured outputstools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDcoherelabs/command-a-03-2025

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers4
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Command A vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct FAQs

Is Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+

Command A is $2.50 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.10 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Command A is $10.00 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.30 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct supports 10,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E 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 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct be self-hosted?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Command A is not marked open weight; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight.

Can Command A and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct understand images?+

Command A is not documented with image input; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Command A is 8K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is —.

Do Command A and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+

Command A: tool calling. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+

Command A has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Command A or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E 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.

Send Feedback