Command R+ vs Llama 4
2026 - Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Llama 4 is open-weights - free to self-host with no API costs. Command R+ requires paid API access.
- •Llama 4 has a 10M context window - 78x larger than Command R+'s 128K. Better for long documents and large codebases.
- •Llama 4 is open-source: fine-tune it, self-host it, or use any inference provider. Command R+ is closed-source.
Specs comparison
| Command R+ | Llama 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Meta |
| Type | Closed source | Open source |
| Context window | 128K | ✓10M |
| Input / 1M tokens | $2.50 | ✓Free (self-host) |
| Output / 1M tokens | $10.00 | Free (self-host) |
| Release date | 2024-04 | 2025-04 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 4 |
|---|---|---|
| RAG (BEIR) | Top-5 | - |
| MMLU | ~75% | ~85% |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts.
Strengths
Command R+
- ✓Purpose-built for RAG with citation grounding
- ✓Low hallucination rate on retrieval tasks
- ✓Reliable multi-step tool calling
- ✓Supports 10 business languages natively
- ✓Available for on-premise deployment
Llama 4
- ✓Fully open weights - no usage restrictions
- ✓10M context in Llama 4 Scout variant
- ✓Native multimodal support
- ✓Strong performance relative to size
- ✓Enormous ecosystem of community tools and fine-tunes
Which should you choose?
Choose Command R+ if you need...
- →Enterprise RAG applications
- →Knowledge base Q&A with citations
- →Multi-step agentic workflows
- →On-premise enterprise deployments
Choose Llama 4 if you need...
- →Self-hosted and on-premise deployments
- →Privacy-sensitive workloads
- →Custom fine-tuning
- →Researchers and open-source builders