Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A vs GPT-4.1 Nano

Updated October 21, 2026. 48 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Command A Replace GPT-4.1 Nano
Command ACohere
Coding
No data
Overall
13.1
Output $/M
$10.00
41
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
7.8
Output $/M
$0.40
7
vs boards won of 48 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Command A has the edge where what matters is LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Model ACommand ACohereNot benchmarked1 independent benchmark$2.69 per solved taskModel BGPT-4.1 NanoOpenAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
48
Command A only
12
GPT-4.1 Nano only
21
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Command A not benchmarked, GPT-4.1 Nano not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 63.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Command A 80.7% against GPT-4.1 Nano 17.3%, 63.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command A $10.00 against GPT-4.1 Nano $0.40 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
Context window
Command A takes 256K tokens, GPT-4.1 Nano 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryCommand ABarsGPT-4.1 NanoTies
Coding42
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning51
Math34
Knowledge100
General170
All shared boards417
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index42
Coding benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured8.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
AA Coding Index27.811.1Command A
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)35.1%42.7%GPT-4.1 Nano
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)7.8%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)17.6%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)28.7%32.6%GPT-4.1 Nano
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%3.8%Command A
WeirdMLNot measured19.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13301306Command A
LMArena Text: software and IT13361305Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.17.8Command A
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured129.5Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
AA Agentic Index1.0Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)9.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
τ²-Bench Telecom80.7%17.3%Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
GPQA Diamond48.5%50.8%GPT-4.1 Nano
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured55.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)76.1%51.2%Command A
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.0%3.8%Command A
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured48.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGINot measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured0.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13261286Command A
LMArena Text: expert12961271Command A
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13351293Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index34
Math benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
AIME13.3%26.5%GPT-4.1 Nano
MATH 500 (Vals AI)76.2%80.2%GPT-4.1 Nano
MGSM (Vals AI)85.7%69.3%Command A
AA Math Index13.024.0GPT-4.1 Nano
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%24.0%GPT-4.1 Nano
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured28.9%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MATH level 5Not measured70.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math13001274Command A
LMArena Text: mathematical work13121274Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index100
Knowledge benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
MMLU Pro69.2%63.5%Command A
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.7%61.1%Command A
CaseLaw (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.0%42.1%Command A
TaxEval (Vals AI)61.4%60.8%Command A
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured52.8%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
MedQA (Vals AI)80.5%68.2%Command A
MedCode (Vals AI)19.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.2%65.7%Command A
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured6.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: science13391297Command A
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341276Command A
LMArena Text: legal and government13481300Command A
LMArena Text: business and finance13151267Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured973Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured916Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured970Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured890Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured925Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured963Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index170
General benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
IFBench73.9%32.0%Command A
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%20.3%Command A
DTBench61.3%52.5%Command A
LMCA10.3%5.5%Command A
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured25.0%Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text13311285Command A
LMArena Text: instruction following13091266Command A
LMArena Text: creative writing13191260Command A
LMArena VisionNot measured1063Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13441303Command A
LMArena Text: non-English13131260Command A
LMArena Text: Chinese13271270Command A
LMArena Text: German13421288Command A
LMArena Text: Japanese12851198Command A
LMArena Text: Korean1285Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: French1351Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1347Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: Russian13141261Command A
LMArena Text: Polish1324Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13381277Command A
LMArena Text: longer queries13341283Command A
LMArena Text: writing and language13281261Command A
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13061243Command A
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1101Only GPT-4.1 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
BenchmarkCommand AGPT-4.1 NanoLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Command A$0.0075Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0003Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A$0.155Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Nano$0.0062Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A$0.600Fits in one request
GPT-4.1 Nano$0.024Fits in one request

GPT-4.1 Nano costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Command A and GPT-4.1 Nano
SpecificationCohere Command AOpenAI GPT-4.1 Nano
MakerCohereOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025April 14, 2025
Context window256K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.10
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved task$2.69Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A better than GPT-4.1 Nano for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Command A has the edge where what matters is LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) or LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-4.1 Nano?

Command A costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.10 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for Command A only.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A or GPT-4.1 Nano?

GPT-4.1 Nano, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks is the Command A vs GPT-4.1 Nano comparison based on?

48 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-4.1 Nano's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next