Command R vs Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
Command R comes out ahead, 51 to 42 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
CohereCommand R
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context128K
MetaLlama-3.3-70B-Instruct
42/100- ECI127.3
- Price$0.59 / $0.724
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Command R is our pick
Command R is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct (42). It leads 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 priceCommand RCommand R $0.263 · Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct $0.624 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameCommand R 128,000 · Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCommand R: Text · Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Command R | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 77 | 60 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 51/100 | 42/100 |
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 RCohere | Llama-3.3-70B-InstructMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 127.3 |
| ECI rank | — | #133 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 47.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 5.1% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.15 (best) | $0.59 |
| Output | $0.60 (best) | $0.724 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.263 (best) | $0.624 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Cohere API | Median of 21 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 4,000 tokens | 4,096 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | command-r-08-2024 | llama-3.3-70b-instruct |
| API providers | 5 | 24 (best) |
| Released | Aug 30, 2024 | Dec 6, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 1, 2024 | Dec 2023 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Command R$2.70
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct$7.35
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Command R or Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct?
Command R is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct (42). It leads 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 R or Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct?
Command R is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official Cohere API price). Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct costs $0.59 input / $0.724 output per million tokens (median across 21 API providers; free on Llama). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for Command R versus $0.624 for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct (2.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Command R has not been scored yet and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has an ECI of 127.3.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Command R and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command R and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct share the same 128,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: Command R up to 4,000, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Command R accepts text; Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is the newest, released Dec 6, 2024. Command R came out Aug 30, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Command R Jun 1, 2024, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct Dec 2023.
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 Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructThree-way comparison
- Command R vs Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructMeta
- Command R vs Qwen-MT TurboAlibaba (Qwen)
- Command R vs Pixtral 12BMistral AI
- Command R vs solar-miniUpstage
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct vs Mistral Small 3.1 24BMistral AI · ECI 127.5
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct vs Qwen2.5 32B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 128.5
