Command A vs Lyria 3.5
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command ACohere |  Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | Not reported |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | Not reported |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 256K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 22, 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Command A | Lyria 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Command A | Lyria |
| Model | Command A | Lyria 3.5 |
| Version | Command A | Lyria 3.5 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-07-29 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text, Audio |
| 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 | generation, image-to-music, lyrics, music-generation, synthid, vocals |
Command A Capabilities
Lyria 3.5 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 Lyria 3.5 FAQs
Is Command A or Lyria 3.5 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and Lyria 3.5, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Lyria 3.5?+
Only Command A has a directly sourced input price: $2.50 per million tokens. Only Command A has a directly sourced output price: $10.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Command A or Lyria 3.5?+
Lyria 3.5 has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and Lyria 3.5 supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or Lyria 3.5?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Command A or Lyria 3.5 be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Command A is not marked open weight; Lyria 3.5 is not marked open weight.
Can Command A and Lyria 3.5 understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; Lyria 3.5 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or Lyria 3.5?+
Lyria 3.5 has the larger sourced maximum output: Command A supports 8K and Lyria 3.5 supports 66K output tokens.
Do Command A and Lyria 3.5 support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. Lyria 3.5: image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or Lyria 3.5?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; Lyria 3.5 has 2, so Lyria 3.5 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A or Lyria 3.5?+
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.