Command A vs GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Command A on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 51.8 to 13.1, at about the same output price ($10.00 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 33 benchmarks have a result for both.
Command A or GPT-6.1 Sol: which to pick
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command A has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 33
- Command A only
- 29
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 65
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol leads, 51.8 against 13.1.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Command A has a AA Agentic Index result, 1.0.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Command A has a GPQA Diamond result, 48.5%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Command A has a AIME result, 13.3%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Command A has a MMLU Pro result, 69.2%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Design Arena: websites result, 1321.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Vals Index result, 63.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens against 256K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-6.1 Sol
Command A $0.0075, GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Command A has the number, $2.69.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Command A not benchmarked, GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 43.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- LMCA: Command A 10.3% against GPT-6.1 Sol 62.8%, 52.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Both cost $10.00 per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Command A takes 256K tokens, GPT-6.1 Sol 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.
| Category | Command A | Bars | GPT-6.1 Sol | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 3 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 5 | ||
| General | 0 | 17 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 33 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | Not measured | 96.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1753 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| AA Coding Index | 27.8 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 35.1% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 7.8% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 88.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.1% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 96.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 17.6% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | Not measured | 43.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 39.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 28.7% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| SciCode | 38.5% | 55.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 25.0% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| FrontierCode | Not measured | 50.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 2743.8 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1330 | 1478 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1336 | 1476 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1754 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1800 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1702 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 9.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 13.1 | 51.8 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 168.4 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 1.0 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1306 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1204 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | Not measured | 1242 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | Not measured | 83.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | Not measured | 88.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | Not measured | 73.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 9.0% | 52.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 21.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 38.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 6.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 52.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | Not measured | 59.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Robo-bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 28.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 80.7% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| APEX-Agents | Not measured | 60.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SpireClimb | Not measured | 24.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 46.5% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 48.5% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LiveBench reasoning | Not measured | 92.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | Not measured | 46.4% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 76.1% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 12.0% | 52.9% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 95.4% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 98.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 94.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 68.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 80.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| EBR-bench | Not measured | 54.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1326 | 1463 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1296 | 1489 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1335 | 1465 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1306 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1356 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 13.3% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 76.2% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 85.7% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| AA Math Index | 13.0 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 13.0% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 100.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 93.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | Not measured | 100.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 99.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1300 | 1489 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1312 | 1513 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 69.2% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 79.7% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 64.5% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 46.0% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 61.4% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 80.5% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 19.7% | 48.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 71.2% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 73.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1339 | 1444 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1334 | 1433 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1348 | 1471 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1315 | 1445 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | Not measured | 75.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1321 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1330 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1389 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1280 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1463 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1346 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench design | Not measured | 82.1% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index017
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | Not measured | 63.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | Not measured | 82.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 46.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 55.7% | 86.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| IFBench | 73.9% | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 52.7% | 84.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 96.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 62.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Furniture assembly | Not measured | 80.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1443 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1309 | 1466 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1319 | 1425 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1288 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1344 | 1450 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1313 | 1433 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1327 | 1487 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: German | 1342 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1285 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1285 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1351 | 1460 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1347 | 1439 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1314 | 1457 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1324 | Not measured | Only Command A measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1338 | 1442 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1334 | 1458 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1328 | 1444 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1306 | 1426 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1274 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1289 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1301 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Command A | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
GPT-6.1 Sol costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-6.1 Sol costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-6.1 Sol 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.
| Specification | Cohere Command A | OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Cohere | OpenAI |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | March 13, 2025 | September 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 256K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $10.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 82.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 5 |
| Cost per solved task | $2.69 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Command A better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Command A has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Command A or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Command A costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for Command A only.
Which has the bigger context window, Command A or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks is the Command A vs GPT-6.1 Sol comparison based on?
33 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-6.1 Sol's on 5. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.