Command A Vision vs Pixtral Large (25.02)
Pixtral Large (25.02) comes out ahead, 33 to 22 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
CohereCommand A Vision
22/100- ECI—
- Price$2.50 / $10.00
- Context128K
- Our pick
Mistral AIPixtral Large (25.02)
33/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Pixtral Large (25.02) is our pick
Pixtral Large (25.02) is the better all-round choice, scoring 33/100 against Command A Vision (22). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest pricePixtral Large (25.02)Pixtral Large (25.02) $3.00 · Command A Vision $4.38 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameCommand A Vision 128,000 · Pixtral Large (25.02) 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCommand A Vision: Text, Images · Pixtral Large (25.02): Text, Images
- Self-hostingCommand A VisionPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Command A Vision | Pixtral Large (25.02) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 19 | 27 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 22/100 | 33/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Command A VisionCohere | Pixtral Large (25.02)Mistral AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.50 | $2.00 (best) |
| Output | $10.00 | $6.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.38 | $3.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Cohere API | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 8,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | command-a-vision-07-2025 | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Jul 31, 2025 | Apr 8, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 1, 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Command A Vision$45.00
- Pixtral Large (25.02)$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Command A Vision or Pixtral Large (25.02)?
Pixtral Large (25.02) is the better all-round choice, scoring 33/100 against Command A Vision (22). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Command A Vision or Pixtral Large (25.02)?
Pixtral Large (25.02) is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Command A Vision costs $2.50 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Cohere API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Pixtral Large (25.02) versus $4.38 for Command A Vision (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Command A Vision has not been scored yet and Pixtral Large (25.02) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Command A Vision and Pixtral Large (25.02) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Command A Vision does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command A Vision and Pixtral Large (25.02) share the same 128,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: Command A Vision up to 8,000, Pixtral Large (25.02) up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Command A Vision accepts text and images; Pixtral Large (25.02) accepts text and images. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Command A Vision publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Pixtral Large (25.02) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Command A Vision is the newest, released Jul 31, 2025. Pixtral Large (25.02) came out Apr 8, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Command A Vision Jun 1, 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-5 ChatThree-way comparison
- Command A Vision vs GPT-5 ChatOpenAI
- Command A Vision vs Jamba LargeAI21 Labs
- Command A Vision vs Gemini 2.5 Computer Use PreviewGoogle
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Sonar Deep ResearchPerplexity
- Pixtral Large (25.02) vs Jamba LargeAI21 Labs
