Command A vs Qwen-MT Plus vs Step 2 (16K)
Command A comes out ahead, 24 to 12 and 11 on our weighted score, though Qwen-MT Plus is 16% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
CohereCommand A
24/100- ECI—
- Price$2.50 / $10.00
- Context256K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Plus
12/100- ECI—
- Price$2.46 / $7.37
- Context16K
StepFunStep 2 (16K)
11/100- ECI—
- Price$5.21 / $16.44
- Context16K
Command A is our pick
Command A is the better all-round choice, scoring 24/100 against Qwen-MT Plus (12) and Step 2 (16K) (11). It leads on context window. Qwen-MT Plus wins on price. 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 priceQwen-MT PlusQwen-MT Plus $3.69 · Command A $4.38 · Step 2 (16K) $8.02 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCommand ACommand A 256,000 · Qwen-MT Plus 16,384 · Step 2 (16K) 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCommand A: Text · Qwen-MT Plus: Text · Step 2 (16K): Text
- Self-hostingCommand APublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Command A | Qwen-MT Plus | Step 2 (16K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 19 | 23 | 7 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 24/100 | 12/100 | 11/100 |
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 ACohere | Qwen-MT PlusAlibaba (Qwen) | Step 2 (16K)StepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.50 | $2.46 (best) | $5.21 |
| Output | $10.00 | $7.37 (best) | $16.44 |
| Cached input | — | — | $1.04 |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.38 | $3.69 (best) | $8.02 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Cohere API | Official Alibaba API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens | 16,384 tokens |
| Max output | 8,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | command-a-03-2025 | qwen-mt-plus | step-2-16k |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Mar 13, 2025 | Jan 2025 | Jan 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 1, 2024 | Apr 2024 | Jun 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$45.00
- Qwen-MT Plus$39.34
- Step 2 (16K)$84.98
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Command A, Qwen-MT Plus or Step 2 (16K)?
Command A is the better all-round choice, scoring 24/100 against Qwen-MT Plus (12) and Step 2 (16K) (11). It leads on context window. Qwen-MT Plus wins on price. 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, Qwen-MT Plus or Step 2 (16K)?
Qwen-MT Plus is cheaper at $2.46 input / $7.37 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Command A costs $2.50 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Cohere API price); Step 2 (16K) costs $5.21 input / $16.44 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.69 per million tokens for Qwen-MT Plus versus $4.38 for Command A (1.2× as much) and $8.02 for Step 2 (16K) (2.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Command A has not been scored yet, Qwen-MT Plus has not been scored yet and Step 2 (16K) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Command A, Qwen-MT Plus and Step 2 (16K) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-MT Plus does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command A has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 16,384 for Qwen-MT Plus and 16,384 for Step 2 (16K). Maximum output per response: Command A up to 8,000, Qwen-MT Plus up to 8,192, Step 2 (16K) up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Command A accepts text; Qwen-MT Plus accepts text; Step 2 (16K) accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Command A publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen-MT Plus and Step 2 (16K) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Command A is the newest, released Mar 13, 2025. Qwen-MT Plus came out Jan 2025; Step 2 (16K) came out Jan 1, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Command A Jun 1, 2024, Qwen-MT Plus Apr 2024, Step 2 (16K) Jun 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.
