Model Comparison
Command R+ vs Llama 3.2 90B InstructWhich is better in 2026?
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 1.2x cheaper per token.
Verdict: Command R+ vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct — which is better?
Command R+ (by Cohere) and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct (by Meta) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
Command R+ outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 1 benchmark (MMLU). Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 1.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Choose Command R+ if…
- you want predictable pricing at $0.25/M input and $1.00/M output
Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct if…
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 1 of 1 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 1.2x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2024
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Command R+ outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 1 benchmark (MMLU).
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Human preference votes
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Command R+ ($0.25/1M tokens) is 1.4x cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).
For output processing, Command R+ ($1.00/1M tokens) is 2.5x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Command R+ is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Command R+ has 14.0B more parameters than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct, making it 15.6% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Both models have the same input context window of 128,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Command R+ does not.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Command R+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Command R+ is licensed under CC BY-NC, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
CC BY-NC
Open weights
Llama 3.2
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Command R+ was released on 2024-08-30, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 1 month newer than Command R+.
Aug 30, 2024
1.8 years ago
Sep 25, 2024
1.8 years ago
3w newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Command R+ is available from Cohere, Bedrock. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.
Command R+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Key Takeaways
Command R+
View detailsCohere
Detailed Comparison
Interactive Arena
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Command R+ and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
| Feature | | |
|---|
FAQ
Common questions about Command R+ vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.