Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Command R
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (2024) and Command R (2024) are frontier reasoning models from Anthropic and Cohere. Claude 3.5 Sonnet ships a 200K-token context window, while Command R ships a 128K-token context window. On HumanEval, Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads by 14.2 pts. On pricing, Command R costs $0.15/1M input tokens versus $3/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit.
Command R is ~1900% cheaper at $0.15/1M; pay for Claude 3.5 Sonnet only for coding workflow support.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-06-20 | 2024-04-04 |
| Context window | 200K | 128K |
| Parameters | 70B | 104B* |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-04 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $3/1M tokens | $0.15/1M tokens |
| Output price | $15/1M tokens | $0.6/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | Yes |
| Code execution | Yes | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| HumanEval | 92.0 | 77.8 |
| Massive Multitask Language Understanding | 88.7 | 80.2 |
| HellaSwag | 96.2 | 90.8 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, HumanEval has Claude 3.5 Sonnet at 92 and Command R at 77.8, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet ahead by 14.2 points; Massive Multitask Language Understanding has Claude 3.5 Sonnet at 88.7 and Command R at 80.2, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet ahead by 8.5 points; HellaSwag has Claude 3.5 Sonnet at 96.2 and Command R at 90.8, with Claude 3.5 Sonnet ahead by 5.4 points. The largest visible gap is 14.2 points on HumanEval, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, multimodal input: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, reasoning mode: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, function calling: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and code execution: Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Both models share structured outputs, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Claude 3.5 Sonnet lists $3/1M input and $15/1M output tokens, while Command R lists $0.15/1M input and $0.6/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Command R lower by about $6.31 per million blended tokens. Availability is 6 providers versus 6, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet when coding workflow support and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Command R when provider fit and lower input-token cost are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Command R?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports 200K tokens, while Command R supports 128K tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Which is cheaper, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Command R?
Command R is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Claude 3.5 Sonnet costs $3/1M input and $15/1M output tokens. Command R costs $0.15/1M input and $0.6/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Command R open source?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is listed under Unknown. Command R is listed under Unknown. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Command R?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for multimodal input, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Command R?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Command R?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is available on GCP Vertex AI, AWS Bedrock, Anthropic, OpenRouter, and Microsoft Foundry. Command R is available on AWS Bedrock, Cohere API, Microsoft Foundry, OCI Generative AI, and OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.