Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
This page compares Command A (Cohere) and Yi-Large (01.AI) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. On preference Elo, Yi-Large is ahead by 86 points (1,430 vs 1,344; lmarena (Aug 17, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Yi-Large resolves 53.8% versus 42.6% (swebench (Aug 17, 2026)). Command A streams faster (118 tok/s) while Yi-Large is the cheaper output token ($0.3/1M). 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.
Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs
Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.
86 pts advantage
28 tok/s faster
$9.70/1M cheaper
Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.
Yi-Large is estimated to save $222.50/month ($2,670/year).
Higher SWE-bench (53.8%).
Lower output list price ($0.3/1M).
Lower TTFT (175 ms).
Larger window (256k).
Yi-Large is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Yi-Large | Higher SWE-bench (53.8%). |
| High-volume chat | Yi-Large | Lower output list price ($0.3/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Command A | Lower TTFT (175 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Command A | Larger window (256k). |
| Screenshots / vision | Yi-Large | Yi-Large is the side marked multimodal in the catalog. |
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
The real PNG is generated at /compare/command-a-vs-yi-large/opengraph-image for crawlers.
Verified head-to-head card