co Cohere Command A Reasoning
Cohere · open weights · writing benchmark
The short version
Cohere Command A Reasoning sits at #115 of 130 on ToneBench, toward the value end of the board, with a writing Elo of 616 and an overall score of 62.1 out of 100. We measured it by having it write all 9 of our real YouTube scripts, five times each, then scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions. Here is how it shook out.
Inside Cohere, this is the strongest writer we tested. It edges out the other 5 Cohere configs on the board, so if you're staying in this family for voice work, this is the one to reach for.
Among open-weights models, it comes in 35th of 47. Open weights still trail the closed frontier on pure voice fidelity, and you can see that in the gap at the top.
Worth knowing before you rely on it: this model is swingy. Its overall score moves ± 7.6 points between runs of the same brief, versus a board median of ± 3.8. A great draft and a mediocre one can come from the identical prompt. The shaded bands on the metric bars below show where that volatility lives.
What it does best is Hook: it ranks 105th on that dimension at 76.3, below the board average. Its softer spot is Anti-Slop (66.0, 122nd), which is the thing to watch if that metric matters most for your use.
It was uneven across the 9 scripts. Its best run was the founder announcement / personal origin story (73.3) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (52.2), a spread of about 21 points. Worth knowing if your writing skews toward one of those formats.
On cost, it runs about $0/task. For that money it beats 14 models that cost noticeably more.
Skill profile
The shape is the story: the further a corner reaches, the stronger that dimension. Biggest edge over the board: Hook (-3.9); furthest behind: Length Discipline (-34.7).
Per-metric scores
Nine writing dimensions, each scored 0–100 and blended by the editorial weight shown. Rank is against all 130 current-ranked models. The thick bar is this model; the thin lines above and below are the current field's best model (darker) and average (lighter) on the same scale. The small ± number is its run-to-run variation.
Per-article scores
The same 9 real scripts every current-ranked model writes, scored individually. Different formats stress different skills.
Consistency: run-to-run variability
Every cell on this page is the mean of 5 independent runs per script; the ± numbers are the run-to-run standard deviation. Overall, Cohere Command A Reasoning varies by ± 7.6 points between runs versus a board median of ± 3.8, so it is swingier than the typical model here, worth knowing if you need repeatable output.
Its most volatile dimension is Tone & Voice (± 3.5 vs a board median of ± 2.2): two runs of the same brief can land visibly different tone & voice scores.
| Metric | This model | Board median | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tone & Voice ? | 64.8 ± 3.5 | ± 2.2 | swingier than most |
| Writing Craft ? | 67.5 ± 3.4 | ± 2.0 | swingier than most |
| Substance & Value ? | 65.5 ± 3.5 | ± 2.6 | typical |
| Flow & Emotion ? | 61.5 ± 3.7 | ± 2.6 | typical |
| YouTube Structure ? | 57.2 ± 5.7 | ± 3.6 | swingier than most |
| Hook ? | 76.3 ± 3.6 | ± 3.0 | typical |
| Length Discipline ? | 32.5 ± 5.8 | ± 8.6 | typical |
| Anti-Slop ? | 66.0 ± 2.6 | ± 2.6 | typical |
| Visual Cues ? | 53.2 ± 10.3 | ± 4.7 | swingier than most |
Measured, not modeled
Numbers we log on every run and rarely talk about. None of these affect the writing scores; cost and latency are informational.
What each judge scored it
The published overall of 62.1 is the consensus of three family-disjoint judges scoring the same 45 stored drafts blind with the identical rubric. The highest and lowest judge differ by 17.2 points on its overall. That gap is wider than typical (board median 9.0): DeepSeek V4 Flash rates it noticeably higher than Claude Opus 5. Read the per-metric numbers knowing the consensus sits between two real opinions. How the panel works: methodology.
How we ran Cohere Command A Reasoning
- Accessed viaCohere API · model page ↗
- Exact model / route id
command-a-reasoning-08-2025(provider default reasoning) - Generations5 independent runs × 9 scripts = 45 drafts, stored immutably after generation
- Run dates2026-07-29 → 2026-08-11
- Judges3-judge panel: Claude Opus 5, high effort (Anthropic) + DeepSeek V4 Flash (OpenRouter) + GPT-5.6 Sol, medium reasoning (Codex CLI): every draft scored independently by all three with the identical rubric, blind to model identity, evidence quotes required before each metric score; published score = per-metric consensus mean, verified with a Bradley-Terry refit (methodology)
- Samplingprovider-default sampling, no fine-tuning, no system-prompt changes; every current-ranked model gets the identical brief, style contract and research packet
- What stays privatethe exact rubric and any non-public reference material; source-publication timing is disclosed for exceptions (why)
Frequently asked questions
How good is Cohere Command A Reasoning at writing?
On ToneBench it ranks #115 of 130 with a writing Elo of 616 and an overall score of 62.1/100. That score comes from writing our 9 real YouTube scripts five times each and scoring every draft blind against our own finished versions across nine writing dimensions.
Is Cohere Command A Reasoning the best Cohere model for writing?
Yes. Among the Cohere configs we tested, Cohere Command A Reasoning is the strongest writer on the board.
Is Cohere Command A Reasoning good value for the money?
It costs about $0/task. Nothing meaningfully cheaper outscores it, which puts it on the value side of the board.
What are Cohere Command A Reasoning's strengths and weaknesses?
Its strongest dimension is Hook (105th on the board, 76.3). Its weakest is Anti-Slop (122nd on the board, 66.0). The full nine-metric breakdown is on this page.
Does Cohere Command A Reasoning write some formats better than others?
Yes. Its best of our 9 scripts was the founder announcement / personal origin story (73.3) and its weakest was the personal technical walkthrough / agentic workflow case study (52.2).
How consistent is Cohere Command A Reasoning between runs?
We run every script 5 times. Cohere Command A Reasoning's overall score varies by about ±7.6 points between runs, versus a board median of ±3.8. That is swingier than typical, so expect more draft-to-draft variation. The full per-metric variability table is on this page.
How was Cohere Command A Reasoning evaluated?
Via Cohere API using the exact model/route id command-a-reasoning-08-2025, run on 2026-07-29. 5 runs per script, provider-default sampling, no fine-tuning; every draft scored blind with a fixed rubric by a three-family judge panel. Full details in the 'How we ran it' section and the methodology.
Is Cohere Command A Reasoning open source?
Yes, it is an open-weights model. Among open-weights models it ranks 35th of 47 for writing.