Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command A vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Command A leads Llama 3.3 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 13.1 to 7.7, and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs 13.9x less per output token ($0.72 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 43 benchmarks have a result for both.

Command ACohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
40
Llama 3.3 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
26.0
Output $/M
$0.72
3
vs boards won of 43 shared

Command A or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct: which to pick

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

Pick Command A for a larger context window (256K against 131K tokens) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
43
Command A only
19
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct only
9
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.

At a glance

Coding index
Command A not benchmarked, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 34.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Command A 80.7% against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 26.6%, 54.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command A $10.00 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.72 per million output tokens, 13.9x apart.
Context window
Command A takes 256K tokens, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 131K.

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 ABarsLlama 3.3 70B InstructTies
Coding41
Intelligence10
Agentic work20
Reasoning50
Math40
Knowledge41
General201
All shared boards403
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index41
Coding benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index27.811.9Command A
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)35.1%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
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%28.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SciCode38.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)25.0%3.0%Command A
WeirdMLNot measured14.4%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding13301268Command A
LMArena Text: software and IT13361273Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.17.7Command A
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured127.3Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index1.0Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)9.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
τ²-Bench Telecom80.7%26.6%Command A
BALROGNot measured23.0%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)46.5%31.9%Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond48.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)76.1%49.8%Command A
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)12.0%3.6%Command A
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured47.4%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
SimpleBenchNot measured19.9%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13261257Command A
LMArena Text: expert12961225Command A
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13351277Command A
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AIME13.3%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)76.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MGSM (Vals AI)85.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
AA Math Index13.07.7Command A
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)13.0%7.7%Command A
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured5.1%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
MATH level 5Not measured41.6%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math13001267Command A
LMArena Text: mathematical work13121267Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Knowledge benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro69.2%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)64.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.0%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)61.4%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedQA (Vals AI)80.5%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MedCode (Vals AI)19.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.2%71.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MMLUNot measured86.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science13391284Command A
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341275Command A
LMArena Text: legal and government13481284Command A
LMArena Text: business and finance13151243Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index201
General benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
MedScribe (Vals AI)55.7%Not measuredOnly Command A measured
IFBench73.9%47.1%Command A
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)52.7%15.7%Command A
DTBench61.3%59.5%Command A
LMCA10.3%17.5%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured33.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text13311274Command A
LMArena Text: instruction following13091242Command A
LMArena Text: creative writing13191250Command A
LMArena Text: English13441303Command A
LMArena Text: non-English13131236Command A
LMArena Text: Chinese13271217Command A
LMArena Text: German13421251Command A
LMArena Text: Japanese12851150Command A
LMArena Text: Korean12851142Command A
LMArena Text: French13511282Command A
LMArena Text: Spanish13471269Command A
LMArena Text: Russian13141252Command A
LMArena Text: Polish13241259Command A
LMArena Text: multi-turn13381280Command A
LMArena Text: longer queries13341255Command A
LMArena Text: writing and language13281255Command A
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13061241Command A
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Command A and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand ALlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
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
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command A$0.155Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.025Fits in one request

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command A$0.600Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.097Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 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 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SpecificationCohere Command AMeta Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MakerCohereMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025December 6, 2024
Context window256K131K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.45
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.72
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved task$2.69Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command A better than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command A for a larger context window (256K against 131K tokens) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Command A costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.45 and $0.72. Cost per solved task is known for Command A only.

Which has the bigger context window, Command A or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Command A, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Command A vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct comparison based on?

43 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command A's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next