+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Command R+ vs GPT-4.1 nano
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
GPT-4.1 nano leads with 4.4% higher average benchmark score. GPT-4.1 nano offers 824.3K more tokens in context window than Command R+. GPT-4.1 nano is $0.75 cheaper per million tokens. GPT-4.1 nano supports multimodal inputs. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
Cohere
Command R+ was developed by Cohere as an advanced language model designed for enterprise applications requiring retrieval-augmented generation. Built to excel at combining external knowledge with language understanding, it serves businesses needing reliable, factually-grounded AI assistance with strong reasoning and multilingual capabilities.
+
+
+
+
OpenAI
GPT-4.1 Nano was developed as the smallest and most efficient variant in the GPT-4.1 family, designed for applications requiring minimal latency and resource usage. Built to enable AI capabilities on edge devices and resource-constrained environments, it distills GPT-4.1 capabilities into an ultra-compact form factor.
7 months newer
Command R+
Cohere
2024-08-30
GPT-4.1 nano
OpenAI
2025-04-14
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Command R+
Input:$0.25
Output:$1.00
+
+
+
+
GPT-4.1 nano
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.40($0.75 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 1 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Command R+
Average Score:75.7%
+
+
+
+
GPT-4.1 nano
Average Score:80.1%(+4.4%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
GPT-4.1 nano
2024-05-31
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Command R+
2 providers
Bedrock
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Cohere
Throughput: 59 tok/s
Latency: 0.65ms
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Command R+
Avg Score:75.7%
Providers:2
+
+
+
+
GPT-4.1 nano
Avg Score:80.1%(+4.4%)
Providers:1