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

Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI vs Command A

Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between Alibaba / Qwen's Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI and Cohere's Command A.

Endpoint Availability & Transition Notice

Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI: Classified as a Legacy Reference model (Deprecated on Together AI (Reference)).

Core Technical & Pricing Comparison
MetricQwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AICommand AAdvantage
Provider OrganizationAlibaba / QwenCohere
Standard Input / 1M$0.35$2.00Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI (83% lower)
Cached Input / 1M$0.175$0.20Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI lower
Output / 1M$0.40$8.00Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI lower
Context Window128k256kCommand A (256k)
Max Generation Tokens8.2k64kCommand A
Tokenizer FamilyQwen Byte-level BPE (~152k 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
Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AILOWER COST
$292.88 / month
$0.00098 / request
Command A
$2,745.00 / month
$0.00915 / request
Selecting Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI saves $2,452.13 / month (89.3% savings) over Command A.

When to Choose Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI

Opt for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct — Together AI when your engineering requirements prioritize Alibaba / Qwen's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Calibrated Qwen Tokenizer (±3%)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $0.35/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.