Compare/Command A+ vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Command A+vsGemini 3.5 Flash (high)

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

Cohere

Command A+

Input
$0/M
Output
$0/M
Speed
248 tok/s
TTFT
0.39s
Google

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Input
$1.5/M
Output
$9/M
Speed
205 tok/s
TTFT
15.26s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Command A+
Faster (tok/s)
Command A+
Lower Latency
Command A+
Benchmarks (0-2)
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Pricing Comparison

MetricCommand A+Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
Input ($/M tokens)$0$1.5
Output ($/M tokens)$0$9
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Command A+$0.00
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)$2.40

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Command A+
248 tok/s
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
205 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Command A+
0.39s
Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)
15.26s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. Command A+ is strongest on Coding Index (27.8), Intelligence Index (22.8). Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) leads on Coding Index (70.1), Intelligence Index (52.0).

Speed. Throughput is comparable — 248 tok/s vs 205 tok/s — so generation speed shouldn't drive your choice here. Look at the per-benchmark wins instead.

Provider. Cohere and Google sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Cohere tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Google 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): Command A+ costs $0.00 ($0/year); Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) costs $180.00 ($2160/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Command A+ ≈ $0.00/run, Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) ≈ $25.50/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Command A+ ≈ $0/run, Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) ≈ $1200/run. Command A+ 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.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Time-to-first-token differs by 39.1× — Command A+ responds in 390ms vs 15260ms. For interactive chat UIs this can matter more than raw benchmark wins.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
22.852.0
Coding Index
27.870.1
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Command A+0 wins
2 winsGemini 3.5 Flash (high)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Command A+ or Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)?

Command A+ is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.00/M tokens vs $3.38/M for Gemini 3.5 Flash (high).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) wins 2 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?

Command A+ generates tokens faster at 248 tok/s vs 205 tok/s. Command A+ also has lower time-to-first-token (0.39s vs 15.26s).

When should I use Command A+ vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (high)?

Choose based on your priorities: Command A+ for lower cost, Gemini 3.5 Flash (high) for stronger benchmark performance, and Command A+ for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.