Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Command A benchmark

Name: Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Command A AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude 3.5 Haiku (Anthropic) and Command A (Cohere) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. On preference Elo, Command A is ahead by 120 points (1,344 vs 1,224; lmarena (Aug 17, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Command A resolves 42.6% versus 36.2% (swebench (Aug 17, 2026)). Claude 3.5 Haiku streams faster (140 tok/s) while Claude 3.5 Haiku is the cheaper output token ($4/1M). Command A has the larger context window (256k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Previous cheap Claude. Haiku 4.5 is the current $1/$5 SKU.

Elo 1,224$4/1M out

Cohere

Command A

Cohere enterprise RAG and tool-use model.

Elo 1,344$10/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3.5 Haiku (4)vsCommand A (5)

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 4W (44%)Overall: Command ACommand A: 5W (56%)

← Claude 3.5 HaikuCommand A →

Command A (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,224vs1,344

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

36.2%vs42.6%

LiveBench

44.8%vs56.2%

GPQA Diamond

54.1%vs66%

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 0WCommand A: 4W

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

140 tok/svs118 tok/s

Time to first token

110 msvs175 ms

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2WCommand A: 0W

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$4/1Mvs$10/1M

Input price

$0.8/1Mvs$2.5/1M

Context window

200kvs256k

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2WCommand A: 1W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageCommand A 4/6

Preference Elo

Command A

120 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Claude 3.5 Haiku

22 tok/s faster

Token Price Efficiency

Claude 3.5 Haiku

$6.00/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,224

EloHigh is better

1,344+10%

LiveBench

High is better

44.8%

LiveBenchHigh is better

56.2%+25%

SWE-bench

High is better

36.2%

SWE-benchHigh is better

42.6%+18%

GPQA

High is better

54.1%

GPQAHigh is better

66%+22%

TTFT

Low is better

+59%110 ms

TTFTLow is better

175 ms

Speed

High is better

+19%140 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

118 tok/s

In $

Low is better

+213%$0.80 / 1M

In $Low is better

$2.50 / 1M

Out $

Low is better

+150%$4.00 / 1M

Out $Low is better

$10.00 / 1M

Context

High is better

200k

ContextHigh is better

256k+28%

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 63% with Claude 3.5 Haiku

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude 3.5 Haiku$88.00 / mo

In: $28Out: $60

Command A$237.50 / mo

In: $87.5Out: $150

Estimated Cost Delta

Claude 3.5 Haiku is estimated to save $149.50/month ($1,794/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Command A:Pick Command A when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Claude 3.5 Haiku:Pick Claude 3.5 Haiku when you are optimizing output cost.
3
Claude 3.5 Haiku:Pick Claude 3.5 Haiku when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsCommand A

Higher SWE-bench (42.6%).

High-volume chatClaude 3.5 Haiku

Lower output list price ($4/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude 3.5 Haiku

Lower TTFT (110 ms).

Long-document RAGCommand A

Larger window (256k).

Screenshots / visionClaude 3.5 Haiku

Claude 3.5 Haiku is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Command A	Higher SWE-bench (42.6%).
High-volume chat	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Lower output list price ($4/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Lower TTFT (110 ms).
Long-document RAG	Command A	Larger window (256k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Claude 3.5 Haiku is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchMar 13, 2025

Command A: Cohere’s enterprise RAG and tool-use row

Mar 2025. RAG and tools, not a frontier Elo play. Listed so “command a benchmark” has a sourced page.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-3-5-haiku-vs-command-a/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Elo 1,224

LiveBench44.8%

SWE-bench36.2%

Speed140 tok/s

Output cost$4/1M

Cohere

Command A

Elo 1,344

LiveBench56.2%

SWE-bench42.6%

Speed118 tok/s

Output cost$10/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Command A?: Command A has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,344). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Command A?: Command A leads SWE-bench at 42.6% vs 36.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Claude 3.5 Haiku output tokens are $4/1M versus $10/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Command A?: Claude 3.5 Haiku has the lower time-to-first-token (110 ms vs 175 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Command A accepts 256k tokens versus 200k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3.5 Haiku and Command A Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude 3.5 Haiku matchups →|All Command A matchups →

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Claude Haiku 4.5 (next haiku)Claude Opus 4.5 vs Command A Claude Opus 4.6 vs Command A Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Command A Claude Opus 5 vs Command A Claude Fable 5 vs Command A

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Command A benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3.5 Haiku (4)vsCommand A (5)

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 4W (44%)Overall: Command ACommand A: 5W (56%)

← Claude 3.5 HaikuCommand A →

Command A (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,224vs1,344

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

36.2%vs42.6%

LiveBench

44.8%vs56.2%

GPQA Diamond

54.1%vs66%

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 0WCommand A: 4W

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

140 tok/svs118 tok/s

Time to first token

110 msvs175 ms

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2WCommand A: 0W

Claude 3.5 Haiku (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$4/1Mvs$10/1M

Input price

$0.8/1Mvs$2.5/1M

Context window

200kvs256k

Claude 3.5 Haiku: 2WCommand A: 1W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsCommand A

Higher SWE-bench (42.6%).

High-volume chatClaude 3.5 Haiku

Lower output list price ($4/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude 3.5 Haiku

Lower TTFT (110 ms).

Long-document RAGCommand A

Larger window (256k).

Screenshots / visionClaude 3.5 Haiku

Claude 3.5 Haiku is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Command A	Higher SWE-bench (42.6%).
High-volume chat	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Lower output list price ($4/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Lower TTFT (110 ms).
Long-document RAG	Command A	Larger window (256k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude 3.5 Haiku	Claude 3.5 Haiku is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Command A?

Command A has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,344). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Command A?

Command A leads SWE-bench at 42.6% vs 36.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Claude 3.5 Haiku output tokens are $4/1M versus $10/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Command A?

Claude 3.5 Haiku has the lower time-to-first-token (110 ms vs 175 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Command A accepts 256k tokens versus 200k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3.5 Haiku and Command A Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Command A

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Command A: Cohere’s enterprise RAG and tool-use row

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Command A

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Command A

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Command A: Cohere’s enterprise RAG and tool-use row

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Command A

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons