Claude Opus 4.6 vs Command A Reasoning
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic |  Command A ReasoningCohere |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #12 of 4676.2 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #33 of 44$0.241 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #19 of 3853.2 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | Not reported |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | Not reported |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 256K |
| 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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Command A Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 84.21100% of row best · points · Claude Opus 4.6 · 13,556 output tokens / case | 62.9075% of row best · points · Cohere Command A Reasoning · 2,002 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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Command A Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Cohere |
| Family | Claude 4 | Command A |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.6 | Command A Reasoning |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.6 | Command A Reasoning |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-02-05 | 2025-08-21 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | 2024-06-01 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 256K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 111B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Cohere (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | agents, chat, citations, reasoning, rag, structured_outputs, tools |
Claude Opus 4.6 Capabilities
Command A Reasoning Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Command A Reasoning FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.6 and Command A Reasoning, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning?+
Only Claude Opus 4.6 has a directly sourced input price: $5.00 per million tokens. Only Claude Opus 4.6 has a directly sourced output price: $25.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1,000K and Command A Reasoning supports 256K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.6 is not marked open weight; Command A Reasoning is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.6 and Command A Reasoning understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.6 is documented with image input; Command A Reasoning is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.6 supports 128K and Command A Reasoning supports 32K output tokens.
Do Claude Opus 4.6 and Command A Reasoning support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Command A Reasoning: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has 1 sourced provider route; Command A Reasoning has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.6 or Command A Reasoning?+
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.