| Signal | Command A | Delta | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 33 | -33 | |
Benchmarks | 61 | -19 | |
Pricing | 10 | +8 | |
Context window size | 86 | +3 | |
Recency | 65 | -14 | |
Output Capacity | 65 | -15 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 4 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
Cohere
DeepSeek
R1 0528 saves you $597.50/month
That's $7170.00/year compared to Command A at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Command A | R1 0528 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 60 | 78 | R1 0528 |
| Rank | #220 | #89 | R1 0528 |
| Quality Rank | #220 | #89 | R1 0528 |
| Adoption Rank | #220 | #89 | R1 0528 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 256K | 164K | Command A |
| Pricing | $2.50/$10.00/M | $0.45/$2.15/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 33 | 67 | R1 0528 |
| Benchmarks | 61 | 80 | R1 0528 |
| Pricing | 10 | 2 | Command A |
| Context window size | 86 | 83 | Command A |
| Recency | 65 | 79 | R1 0528 |
| Output Capacity | 65 | 80 | R1 0528 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 60/100 (rank #220), placing it in the top 24% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 78/100 (rank #89), placing it in the top 70% of all 290 models tracked.
R1 0528 has a 18-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
R1 0528 offers 79% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $39.00/month with R1 0528 vs $187.50/month with Command A - a $148.50 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. R1 0528 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (256K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.15/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
R1 0528 clearly outperforms Command A with a significant 17.700000000000003-point lead. For most general use cases, R1 0528 is the stronger choice. However, Command A may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Command A
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
R1 0528
79% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Command A
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Command A
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Command A
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Cohere
| Capability | Command A | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Cohere
DeepSeek
R1 0528 saves you $13.11/month
That's 79% cheaper than Command A at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Command A | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 256K | 164K |
| Max Output Tokens | 8,192 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Mar 13, 2025 | May 28, 2025 |
R1 0528 scores 78/100 (rank #89) compared to Command A's 60/100 (rank #220), giving it a 18-point advantage. R1 0528 is the stronger overall choice, though Command A may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Command A is ranked #220 and R1 0528 is ranked #89 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
R1 0528 is cheaper at $2.15/M output tokens vs Command A's $10.00/M output tokens - 4.7x more expensive. Input token pricing: Command A at $2.50/M vs R1 0528 at $0.45/M.
Command A has a larger context window of 256,000 tokens compared to R1 0528's 163,840 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.