+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Command R+ vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads with 10.3% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available on 5 providers. Overall, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
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.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B was developed as a flagship-tier open-source model, designed to provide advanced capabilities with 90 billion parameters. Built to serve applications requiring high-quality reasoning and generation, it represents a powerful option within the Llama 3.2 series for demanding tasks.
26 days newer
Command R+
Cohere
2024-08-30
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Command R+
Input:$0.25
Output:$1.00
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input:$0.35
Output:$0.40($0.50 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 1 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Command R+
Average Score:75.7%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Average Score:86.0%(+10.3%)
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
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Avg Score:86.0%(+10.3%)
Providers:5