Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026

Command A vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo benchmark

Name: Command A vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Command A (Cohere) and Ernie 4.5 Turbo (Baidu) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. On preference Elo, Ernie 4.5 Turbo is ahead by 106 points (1,450 vs 1,344; lmarena (Aug 17, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Ernie 4.5 Turbo resolves 57% versus 42.6% (swebench (Aug 17, 2026)). Command A streams faster (118 tok/s) while Ernie 4.5 Turbo is the cheaper output token ($1.2/1M). 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

Cohere

Command A

Cohere enterprise RAG and tool-use model.

Elo 1,344$10/1M out

Baidu

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Baidu current multimodal enterprise foundation model with broad Chinese knowledge.

Elo 1,450$1.2/1M 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.

Command A (3)vsErnie 4.5 Turbo (7)

Command A: 3W (30%)Overall: Ernie 4.5 TurboErnie 4.5 Turbo: 7W (70%)

← Command AErnie 4.5 Turbo →

Ernie 4.5 Turbo (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,344vs1,450

Coding Elo

—vs1,435

SWE-bench

42.6%vs57%

LiveBench

56.2%vs61%

GPQA Diamond

66%vs74.5%

Command A: 0WErnie 4.5 Turbo: 5W

Command A (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

118 tok/svs95 tok/s

Time to first token

175 msvs200 ms

Command A: 2WErnie 4.5 Turbo: 0W

Ernie 4.5 Turbo (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$10/1Mvs$1.2/1M

Input price

$2.5/1Mvs$0.3/1M

Context window

256kvs128k

Command A: 1WErnie 4.5 Turbo: 2W

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 AdvantageErnie 4.5 Turbo 4/6

Preference Elo

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

106 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Command A

23 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

$8.80/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,344

EloHigh is better

1,450+8%

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,435

LiveBench

High is better

56.2%

LiveBenchHigh is better

61%+9%

SWE-bench

High is better

42.6%

SWE-benchHigh is better

57%+34%

GPQA

High is better

66%

GPQAHigh is better

74.5%+13%

TTFT

Low is better

+14%175 ms

TTFTLow is better

200 ms

Speed

High is better

+24%118 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

95 tok/s

In $

Low is better

$2.5/1M

In $Low is better

$0.3/1M+733%

Out $

Low is better

$10/1M

Out $Low is better

$1.2/1M+733%

Context

High is better

+100%256k

ContextHigh is better

128k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 88% with Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

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

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

Command A$237.50 / mo

In: $87.50Out: $150.00

Ernie 4.5 Turbo$28.50 / mo

In: $10.50Out: $18.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Ernie 4.5 Turbo is estimated to save $209.00/month ($2,508/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Ernie 4.5 Turbo:Pick Ernie 4.5 Turbo when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Command A:Pick Command A when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Ernie 4.5 Turbo:Pick Ernie 4.5 Turbo as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsErnie 4.5 Turbo

Higher SWE-bench (57%).

High-volume chatErnie 4.5 Turbo

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UICommand A

Lower TTFT (175 ms).

Long-document RAGCommand A

Larger window (256k).

Screenshots / visionErnie 4.5 Turbo

Ernie 4.5 Turbo is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Ernie 4.5 Turbo	Higher SWE-bench (57%).
High-volume chat	Ernie 4.5 Turbo	Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Command A	Lower TTFT (175 ms).
Long-document RAG	Command A	Larger window (256k).
Screenshots / vision	Ernie 4.5 Turbo	Ernie 4.5 Turbo 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/command-a-vs-ernie-4-5/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Cohere

Command A

Elo 1,344

LiveBench56.2%

SWE-bench42.6%

Speed118 tok/s

Output cost$10/1M

Baidu

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Elo 1,450

LiveBench61%

SWE-bench57%

Speed95 tok/s

Output cost$1.2/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Command A or Ernie 4.5 Turbo?: Ernie 4.5 Turbo has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,450). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Command A or Ernie 4.5 Turbo?: Ernie 4.5 Turbo leads SWE-bench at 57% vs 42.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Ernie 4.5 Turbo output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $10/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Command A or Ernie 4.5 Turbo?: Command A has the lower time-to-first-token (175 ms vs 200 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 128k.
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. Command A and Ernie 4.5 Turbo Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Command A matchups →|All Ernie 4.5 Turbo matchups →

Ernie 4.5 Turbo vs Yi-Lightning (previous other)Mistral Large 3 vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo Doubao Pro 1.5 vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo Gemini 3 Flash vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo Claude Opus 4.5 vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Command A vs Ernie 4.5 Turbo benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Command A (3)vsErnie 4.5 Turbo (7)

Command A: 3W (30%)Overall: Ernie 4.5 TurboErnie 4.5 Turbo: 7W (70%)

← Command AErnie 4.5 Turbo →

Ernie 4.5 Turbo (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,344vs1,450

Coding Elo

—vs1,435

SWE-bench

42.6%vs57%

LiveBench

56.2%vs61%

GPQA Diamond

66%vs74.5%

Command A: 0WErnie 4.5 Turbo: 5W

Command A (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

118 tok/svs95 tok/s

Time to first token

175 msvs200 ms

Command A: 2WErnie 4.5 Turbo: 0W

Ernie 4.5 Turbo (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$10/1Mvs$1.2/1M

Input price

$2.5/1Mvs$0.3/1M

Context window

256kvs128k

Command A: 1WErnie 4.5 Turbo: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsErnie 4.5 Turbo

Higher SWE-bench (57%).

High-volume chatErnie 4.5 Turbo

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UICommand A

Lower TTFT (175 ms).

Long-document RAGCommand A

Larger window (256k).

Screenshots / visionErnie 4.5 Turbo

Ernie 4.5 Turbo is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Ernie 4.5 Turbo	Higher SWE-bench (57%).
High-volume chat	Ernie 4.5 Turbo	Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Command A	Lower TTFT (175 ms).
Long-document RAG	Command A	Larger window (256k).
Screenshots / vision	Ernie 4.5 Turbo	Ernie 4.5 Turbo is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Command A or Ernie 4.5 Turbo?

Ernie 4.5 Turbo has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,450). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Command A or Ernie 4.5 Turbo?

Ernie 4.5 Turbo leads SWE-bench at 57% vs 42.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Ernie 4.5 Turbo output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $10/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Command A or Ernie 4.5 Turbo?

Command A has the lower time-to-first-token (175 ms vs 200 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 128k.

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. Command A and Ernie 4.5 Turbo 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

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Command A

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

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

Command A

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

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

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Command A

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

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

Command A

Ernie 4.5 Turbo

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons