Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Command-R+ (Apr '24) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $3 | $3 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $15 | $15 |
Verdict. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) wins the overall benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the premium bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Command-R+ (Apr '24) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Command-R+ (Apr '24) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is strongest on Intelligence Index (36.8). Command-R+ (Apr '24) leads on Intelligence Index (2.6).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. Anthropic and Cohere sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Anthropic tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Cohere often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) costs $315.00 ($3780/year); Command-R+ (Apr '24) costs $315.00 ($3780/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $45.00/run, Command-R+ (Apr '24) ≈ $45.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $2100/run, Command-R+ (Apr '24) ≈ $2100/run.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Command-R+ (Apr '24). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) generates tokens faster at 43 tok/s vs — tok/s. Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.36s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for stronger benchmark performance, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.