Command A Reasoning vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

At a Glance

Compare
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens256K262K
Model facts checkedSep 3, 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 →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldCommand A ReasoningMistral-Medium-3.5-128B
DeveloperCohereMistral AI
FamilyCommand AMistral Medium 3 5 128b
ModelCommand A ReasoningMistral-Medium-3.5-128B
VersionCommand A ReasoningMistral-Medium-3.5-128B
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-08-21Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2024-06-01Unknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window256K262K
Total parameters111B127.7B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownother
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesUnknown
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessCohere (Standard)Unknown
Capabilitiesagents, chat, citations, reasoning, rag, structured_outputs, toolschat, generation, reasoning, tools

Command A Reasoning Capabilities

agentschatcitationsreasoningragstructured outputstools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDcoherelabs/command-a-reasoning-08-2025

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers0
Canonical IDmistralai/Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Command A Reasoning vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B FAQs

Is Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Command A Reasoning and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?+

Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.

Which has a larger context window, Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?+

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the larger sourced context window. Command A Reasoning supports 256K and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B supports 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?+

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 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B be self-hosted?+

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Command A Reasoning is not marked open weight; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is open weight.

Can Command A Reasoning and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B understand images?+

Command A Reasoning is not documented with image input; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Command A Reasoning is 32K and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is —.

Do Command A Reasoning and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B support reasoning and tool use?+

Command A Reasoning: reasoning and tool calling. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?+

Command A Reasoning has 1 sourced provider route; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has 0, so Command A Reasoning has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Command A Reasoning or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?+

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