command-r vs gpt-oss-120b
command-r is 2.3× cheaper on input than gpt-oss-120b.
| command-r | gpt-oss-120b | |
|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M | $0.15 | $0.35 |
| Cached input / 1M | — | — |
| Output / 1M | $0.60 | $0.75 |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 4K | 33K |
| Provider | Cohere | Cerebras |
| Vision | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Token count | estimated | estimated |
Capability for the money
Independent measurement · Artificial Analysis · read 2026-08-11Not the same tier: gpt-oss-120b leads command-r by 83.0 points on coding (LiveCodeBench), for 1.7× the price.
Coding
writing and fixing code
LiveCodeBenchgpt-oss-120b +83.0
Hard reasoning
graduate-level science and multi-step analysis
GPQA Diamondgpt-oss-120b +49.8
Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, gpt-oss-120b returns 184.4 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 63.2 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.
Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. No published following instructions or tool use score for one of these models, so those lenses are omitted. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.
Which to pick
- Cheaper input: command-r
- Cheaper output: command-r
- Larger context: gpt-oss-120b
- Better at coding: gpt-oss-120b (4.8% vs 87.8% on LiveCodeBench)
- Better at hard reasoning: gpt-oss-120b (28.4% vs 78.2% on GPQA Diamond)
List price is not production cost. Output length, cache hit rate, retries and task quality move the real number more than the headline rate does — price your own prompt on the token ledger before deciding.
Related comparisons
command-r detail · gpt-oss-120b detail · All Cohere pricing · All comparisons