Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with Command A and GPT-4o-mini, or choose any two current ranked language models. Compare capability evidence, price, context, provider availability, and weight access without pretending one field decides every use case.
Current public data
Command A vs GPT-4o-mini
Live dataset updated 9/9/2026, 8:46:14 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | Command A Cohere | GPT-4o-mini OpenAI |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #118 | #117 |
| Index score | 34.3 | 35.0 |
| Evidence | Measured2 public benchmark observations across 2 boards | Measuredpublisher-corpus-prior over 182 held-out anchors (61%); 1 specialist-board observation at 2.1% support (40%); shrunk 22.1 up toward the measured corpus |
| Input / 1M | $2.50 | $0.15 |
| Output / 1M | $10.00 | $0.60 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 256K | 128K |
| Providers | 1 | 2 |
| Weight access | Gated access | API only |
Decision facts
- Command A is #118; GPT-4o-mini is #117 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 34.3 for Command A and 35.0 for GPT-4o-mini. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
- Both positions use Measured evidence.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $10.00 for Command A and $0.60 for GPT-4o-mini. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $10.00 for Command A versus $0.60 for GPT-4o-mini. GPT-4o-mini costs 94.0% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.
- Published context is 256,000 tokens for Command A and 128,000 for GPT-4o-mini.
- Weight access differs: Command A is gated; GPT-4o-mini is none.
- ModelCap currently lists 1 providers for Command A and 2 for GPT-4o-mini.
These are separate published fields, not a synthetic winner. ModelCap does not collapse price, access, context, and capability evidence into a hidden recommendation score.
Popular comparisons
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#2 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3#3 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra#4 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#4 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#5 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#4 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Astra#6 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Kimi K3#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3#3 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K3#4 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#6 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#7 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#3 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#4 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol#7 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Kimi K3#7 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs GLM 5.3#1 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GLM 5.3#2 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3#3 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
Each comparison page is a permanent, shareable URL with the same live figures as this tool: ModelCap Index position, API pricing, context window, provider count, weight access and every shared benchmark board.