Command A vs Step 2 (16K) vs Step 1 (32K)
Command A comes out ahead, 24 to 18 and 11 on our weighted score, though Step 1 (32K) is 10% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
CohereCommand A
24/100- ECI—
- Price$2.50 / $10.00
- Context256K
StepFunStep 2 (16K)
11/100- ECI—
- Price$5.21 / $16.44
- Context16K
- StepFun
Step 1 (32K)
18/100- ECI—
- Price$2.05 / $9.59
- Context33K
Command A is our pick
Command A is the better all-round choice, scoring 24/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Step 2 (16K) (11). It leads on context window. Step 1 (32K) 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 priceStep 1 (32K)Step 1 (32K) $3.94 · Command A $4.38 · Step 2 (16K) $8.02 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCommand ACommand A 256,000 · Step 1 (32K) 32,768 · Step 2 (16K) 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCommand A: Text · Step 2 (16K): Text · Step 1 (32K): Text
- Self-hostingCommand APublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Command A | Step 2 (16K) | Step 1 (32K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 19 | 7 | 22 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 24/100 | 11/100 | 18/100 |
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 | Step 2 (16K)StepFun | Step 1 (32K)StepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.50 | $5.21 | $2.05 (best) |
| Output | $10.00 | $16.44 | $9.59 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $1.04 | $0.41 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $4.38 | $8.02 | $3.94 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Cohere API | Official StepFun (Global) API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 8,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 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 | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | command-a-03-2025 | step-2-16k | step-1-32k |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Mar 13, 2025 | Jan 1, 2025 | Jan 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 1, 2024 | Jun 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
- Step 2 (16K)$84.98
- Step 1 (32K)$39.68
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Command A, Step 2 (16K) or Step 1 (32K)?
Command A is the better all-round choice, scoring 24/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Step 2 (16K) (11). It leads on context window. Step 1 (32K) 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, Step 2 (16K) or Step 1 (32K)?
Step 1 (32K) is cheaper at $2.05 input / $9.59 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) 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 $3.94 per million tokens for Step 1 (32K) versus $4.38 for Command A (1.1× as much) and $8.02 for Step 2 (16K) (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, Step 2 (16K) has not been scored yet and Step 1 (32K) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Command A, Step 2 (16K) and Step 1 (32K) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command A has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Step 1 (32K) and 16,384 for Step 2 (16K). Maximum output per response: Command A up to 8,000, Step 2 (16K) up to 8,192, Step 1 (32K) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Command A accepts text; Step 2 (16K) accepts text; Step 1 (32K) 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; Step 2 (16K) and Step 1 (32K) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Command A is the newest, released Mar 13, 2025. Step 2 (16K) came out Jan 1, 2025; Step 1 (32K) came out Jan 1, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Command A Jun 1, 2024, Step 2 (16K) Jun 2024, Step 1 (32K) 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.
