Command A Reasoning vs GPT-5.4 Nano
At a Glance
| Compare |  Command A ReasoningCohere |  GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #42 of 4614.7 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #14 of 44$0.058 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #37 of 3837.5 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.20Openai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $1.25Openai ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 256K | 400K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 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 Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 62.9091% of row best · points · Cohere Command A Reasoning · 2,002 output tokens / case | 69.12100% of row best · points · GPT-5.4 nano · 3,831 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 Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Family | Command A | Gpt 5 4 |
| Model | Command A Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Version | Command A Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Nano |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-08-21 | 2026-03-17 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-01 | 2025-08-31 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 256K | 400K |
| 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) | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | agents, chat, citations, reasoning, rag, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Command A Reasoning Capabilities
GPT-5.4 Nano Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Command A ReasoningCohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Command A ReasoningCohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Command A ReasoningCohere | cross-developer peerstext |
Command A ReasoningCohere | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Command A Reasoning vs GPT-5.4 Nano FAQs
Is Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A Reasoning and GPT-5.4 Nano, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano?+
Only GPT-5.4 Nano has a directly sourced input price: $0.20 per million tokens. Only GPT-5.4 Nano has a directly sourced output price: $1.25 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano?+
GPT-5.4 Nano has the larger sourced context window. Command A Reasoning supports 256K and GPT-5.4 Nano supports 400K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Command A Reasoning is not marked open weight; GPT-5.4 Nano is not marked open weight.
Can Command A Reasoning and GPT-5.4 Nano understand images?+
Command A Reasoning is not documented with image input; GPT-5.4 Nano is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano?+
GPT-5.4 Nano has the larger sourced maximum output: Command A Reasoning supports 32K and GPT-5.4 Nano supports 128K output tokens.
Do Command A Reasoning and GPT-5.4 Nano support reasoning and tool use?+
Command A Reasoning: reasoning and tool calling. GPT-5.4 Nano: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano?+
Command A Reasoning has 1 sourced provider route; GPT-5.4 Nano has 2, so GPT-5.4 Nano has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Command A Reasoning or GPT-5.4 Nano?+
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.