{T}
TokenMath.net
Updated 2026-09-22 11:16 UTC
Head-to-Head Specification Battle

Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI vs Command A

Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Meta / Together's Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI and Cohere's Command A.

Endpoint Availability & Transition Notice

Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI: Classified as a Legacy Reference model (Deprecated on Together AI (Reference)).

Core Technical & Pricing Comparison
MetricLlama 3.1 405B — Together AICommand AAdvantage
Provider OrganizationMeta / TogetherCohere
Standard Input / 1M$3.50$2.00Command A (43% lower)
Cached Input / 1MNone$0.20Command A lower
Output / 1M$3.50$8.00Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI lower
Context Window128k256kCommand A (256k)
Max Generation Tokens4.1k64kCommand A
Tokenizer FamilyMeta Llama 3 Tiktoken BPE (~128k vocabulary)Cohere Byte-Pair Encoding (256k vocabulary)

Interactive Side-by-Side Cost Simulator

Live Delta
Input Tokens / Req2,500
Output Tokens / Req800
Daily Requests10,000
Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI
$3,465.00 / month
$0.0116 / request
Command ALOWER COST
$2,745.00 / month
$0.00915 / request
Selecting Command A saves $720.00 / month (20.8% savings) over Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI.

When to Choose Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI

Opt for Llama 3.1 405B — Together AI when your engineering requirements prioritize Meta / Together's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Exact Llama 3 Tokenizer (±2%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $3.5/M input rate.

When to Choose Command A

Opt for Command A when looking for Cohere's tooling integration, specific context window depth (256k tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $8/M rate.