Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Command A |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $2 | $2.5 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $10 | $10 |
Verdict. Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Command A is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Command A makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is strongest on Coding Index (66.4), Intelligence Index (42.6). Command A leads on Intelligence Index (7.5).
Speed. Throughput is comparable — 58 tok/s vs 60 tok/s — so generation speed shouldn't drive your choice here. Look at the per-benchmark wins instead.
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 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) costs $210.00 ($2520/year); Command A costs $225.00 ($2700/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $30.00/run, Command A ≈ $32.50/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) ≈ $1400/run, Command A ≈ $1500/run. Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
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
Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $4.00/M tokens vs $4.38/M for Command A.
Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Command A. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Command A generates tokens faster at 60 tok/s vs 58 tok/s. Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.44s vs 1.86s).
Choose based on your priorities: Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for lower cost, Claude Sonnet 5 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) for stronger benchmark performance, and Command A for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.