Compare/GPT-4o (Nov '24) vs Command A

GPT-4o (Nov '24)vsCommand A

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

OpenAI

GPT-4o (Nov '24)

Input
$2.5/M
Output
$10/M
Speed
131 tok/s
TTFT
1.01s
Cohere

Command A

Input
$2.5/M
Output
$10/M
Speed
60 tok/s
TTFT
1.86s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Tie
Faster (tok/s)
GPT-4o (Nov '24)
Lower Latency
GPT-4o (Nov '24)
Benchmarks (1-0)
GPT-4o (Nov '24)

Pricing Comparison

MetricGPT-4o (Nov '24)Command A
Input ($/M tokens)$2.5$2.5
Output ($/M tokens)$10$10
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GPT-4o (Nov '24)$3.50
Command A$3.50

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
GPT-4o (Nov '24)
131 tok/s
Command A
60 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
GPT-4o (Nov '24)
1.01s
Command A
1.86s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GPT-4o (Nov '24) 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 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. GPT-4o (Nov '24) is strongest on Intelligence Index (11.1). Command A leads on Intelligence Index (7.5).

Speed. On throughput, GPT-4o (Nov '24) generates tokens at 131 tok/s versus 60 tok/s — about 54% faster. On time-to-first-token, GPT-4o (Nov '24) responds in 1010ms vs 1860ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. OpenAI and Cohere sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: OpenAI 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): GPT-4o (Nov '24) costs $225.00 ($2700/year); Command A costs $225.00 ($2700/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-4o (Nov '24) ≈ $32.50/run, Command A ≈ $32.50/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-4o (Nov '24) ≈ $1500/run, Command A ≈ $1500/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.

Head-to-head deltas

  • On throughput, GPT-4o (Nov '24) is 2.17× faster (131 tok/s vs 60 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
11.17.5
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GPT-4o (Nov '24)1 wins
0 winsCommand A

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o (Nov '24) or Command A?

Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

GPT-4o (Nov '24) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Command A. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GPT-4o (Nov '24) generates tokens faster at 131 tok/s vs 60 tok/s. GPT-4o (Nov '24) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.01s vs 1.86s).

When should I use GPT-4o (Nov '24) vs Command A?

Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, GPT-4o (Nov '24) for stronger benchmark performance, and GPT-4o (Nov '24) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.