Command A vs Qwen3.8 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command ACohere |  Qwen3.8 FlashQwen |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #4 of 44$0.021 per LiveBench case |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.113Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $10.00Cohere ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.382Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 256K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 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 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 60.9073% of row best · points · Cohere Command A (03-2025) · 1,177 output tokens / case | 83.20100% of row best · points · Qwen3.8 Flash · 24,187 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 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 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | Qwen |
| Family | Command A | Qwen3 8 Flash |
| Model | Command A | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Version | Command A | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 256K | 1,000K |
| 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) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, citations, multilingual, rag, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Command A Capabilities
Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Qwen3.8 Flash FAQs
Is Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A and Qwen3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Command A is $2.50 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.113 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Command A is $10.00 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.382 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Command A supports 256K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Command A is not marked open weight; Qwen3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Command A and Qwen3.8 Flash understand images?+
Command A is not documented with image input; Qwen3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Command A supports 8K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 131K output tokens.
Do Command A and Qwen3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A: tool calling. Qwen3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Command A has 1 sourced provider route; Qwen3.8 Flash has 4, so Qwen3.8 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
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.