Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command R7B (12-2024) vs Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)

Command R7B (12-2024) costs 10.0x less per output token than Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) ($0.15 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Command R7B (12-2024)Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)Google
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
vs $0.15 vs $1.50 per 1M output tokens. Command R7B (12-2024) is 10.0x cheaper.

Command R7B (12-2024) or Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image): which to pick

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

Pick Command R7B (12-2024) for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($0.15 vs $1.50 per million) and a larger context window (128K against 66K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R7B (12-2024) has results on Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL); Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos. Compare them on price and context instead.

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 R7B (12-2024) not benchmarked, Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Command R7B (12-2024) $0.15 against Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) $1.50 per million output tokens, 10.0x apart.
Context window
Command R7B (12-2024) takes 128K tokens, Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) 66K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)Leader
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)32.1%Not measuredOnly Command R7B (12-2024) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
Image generationDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Image generation benchmarks for Command R7B (12-2024) and Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)
BenchmarkCommand R7B (12-2024)Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)Leader
Design Arena: imagesNot measured1239Only Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) measured
Design Arena: graphic designNot measured1249Only Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) measured
Design Arena: logosNot measured1214Only Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) measured
LMArena Text to ImageNot measured1250Only Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) measured
LMArena Image EditNot measured1313Only Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) measured

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 R7B (12-2024)$0.0001Fits in one request
Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)$0.0010Fits in one request

Command R7B (12-2024) costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command R7B (12-2024)$0.0023Fits in one request
Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)$0.017Fits in one request

Command R7B (12-2024) costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command R7B (12-2024)$0.0090Exceeds the context window
Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)$0.065Exceeds the context window

Command R7B (12-2024) 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 R7B (12-2024) and Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)
SpecificationCohere Command R7B (12-2024)Google Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)
MakerCohereGoogle
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 14, 2024June 30, 2026
Context window128K66K
Input $/Mtok$0.0375$0.25
Output $/Mtok$0.15$1.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command R7B (12-2024) better than Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command R7B (12-2024) for output tokens 10.0x cheaper ($0.15 vs $1.50 per million) and a larger context window (128K against 66K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Command R7B (12-2024) or Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)?

Command R7B (12-2024) costs $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) costs $0.25 and $1.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Command R7B (12-2024) or Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)?

Command R7B (12-2024), with 128K tokens against 66K.

Has any benchmark tested both Command R7B (12-2024) and Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R7B (12-2024) has results on Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL); Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image) on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next