Command A vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command ACohere | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 |
| 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 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 | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-0ebb411abf00 · arena_rating · statistical tie | 1,330.94100% of row best · rating · command-a-03-2025; 95% CI [1327.49064818, 1334.38717569]; votes 55766; rank 225 | 1,328.88100% of row best · rating · nvidia-nemotron-3.5-lightning-30b-a3b-nvfp4; 95% CI [1323.35291228, 1334.41299389]; votes 19938; rank 229 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
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 | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | NVIDIA |
| Family | Command A | Nvidia Nemotron 3 5 Lightning |
| Model | Command A | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B |
| Version | Command A | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B-A3B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-08-11 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 256K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 111B | 30B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 3B |
| License | Unknown | openmdw-1.1 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Cohere (Standard) | Fireworks Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Command A Capabilities
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | Command ACohere | family variantstext | |
 ERNIE 5.1Baidu | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Sonar ProPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Solar Pro 4Upstage | cross-developer peerstext |
ERNIE X1.1Baidu | vs | Command ACohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Command A ReasoningCohere | family variantstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Command A TranslateCohere | family variantstext |
Command ACohere | vs | Command A VisionCohere | family variantstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Antigravity AgentGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs | SonarPerplexity | cross-developer peerstext |
Command ACohere | vs |  Qwen3 Coder PlusQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Command A vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B FAQs
Is Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?+
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 NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256,000 tokens and NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B supports 1,048,576 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B be self-hosted?+
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is documented as self-hostable; Command A is documented as not self-hostable. Command A is not marked open weight; NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is open weight.
Can Command A and NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?+
Command A has a sourced maximum output of 8,000 tokens; NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do Command A and NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Command A or NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?+
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.