Pick Command A+ for cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two h100 gpus, unusually lean for a 218b-parameter model or a 218b-total/25b-active moe released with open weights (apache 2.0) on hugging face. Pick Llama 4 Maverick for open weights, 1m context or strong image + text understanding.
Command A+ (Cohere, Canada) and Llama 4 Maverick (Meta, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Command A+ is cohere's newer, leaner flagship - a 218B open-weight MoE tuned for efficiency (just two GPUs to run) and 48-language support. Llama 4 Maverick is meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Their biggest split is context window, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences
Context window: Llama 4 Maverick holds 3.9× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (unconfirmed) (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Command A+ is the newer model by about 14 months (released May 19, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a Canada-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Command A+
Llama 4 Maverick
Provider
Cohere (Canada)
Meta (US)
Released
May 19, 2026
April 2025
Context window
256K (unconfirmed) (~384 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two H100 GPUs, unusually lean for a 218B-parameter model: Command A+ — Cohere's newer, leaner flagship - a 218B open-weight MoE tuned for efficiency (just two GPUs to run) and 48-language support — and it is the newer of the two.
A 218B-total/25B-active MoE released with open weights (Apache 2.0) on Hugging Face: Command A+ — Command A+ lists a 218B-total/25B-active MoE released with open weights (Apache 2.0) on Hugging Face among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Supports 48 languages, including all official EU languages: Command A+ — Command A+ lists supports 48 languages, including all official EU languages among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Open weights, 1M context: Llama 4 Maverick — Its 1M window holds about 3.9× more than Command A+'s 256K (unconfirmed) in a single prompt.
Strong image + text understanding: Llama 4 Maverick — Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Self-hostable: Llama 4 Maverick — Llama 4 Maverick lists self-hostable among its strengths; Command A+ does not.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Maverick — Its 1M window is about 3.9× larger than Command A+'s 256K (unconfirmed), fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Llama 4 Maverick — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two h100 gpus, unusually lean for a 218b-parameter model: Command A+ — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is open weights, 1m context: Llama 4 Maverick — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Llama 4 Maverick or Command A+ — Origin (Canada vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Command A+: where it fits
Cohere's newer, leaner flagship - a 218B open-weight MoE tuned for efficiency (just two GPUs to run) and 48-language support. Released May 19, 2026 by Cohere, it is built for cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two H100 GPUs, unusually lean for a 218B-parameter model, a 218B-total/25B-active MoE released with open weights (Apache 2.0) on Hugging Face, supports 48 languages, including all official EU languages, and positioned by Cohere as its 'most efficient and performant model to date'.
Its trade-offs are real: no official context window or per-token price published yet - both are estimated/unavailable, newer release with less independent benchmark verification than established flagships, and enterprise/multilingual focus rather than topping general reasoning leaderboards. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
Llama 4 Maverick: where it fits
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for open weights, 1M context, strong image + text understanding, self-hostable, and 400B MoE, 17B active.
Its trade-offs: needs serious hardware to self-host, and trails closed frontier on reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Command A+ (Canada) and Llama 4 Maverick (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A+ or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Command A+ leans toward cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two h100 gpus, unusually lean for a 218b-parameter model while Llama 4 Maverick leans toward open weights, 1m context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Command A+ or Llama 4 Maverick?
They are priced almost identically, so cost will not decide between them.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Maverick — 1M vs 256K (unconfirmed), about 3.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Command A+ and Llama 4 Maverick together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Command A+, Llama 4 Maverick and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Command A+ or Llama 4 Maverick?
Command A+ — released May 19, 2026, about 14 months after Llama 4 Maverick.
Command A+ vs Llama 4 Maverick
Cohere · Canada | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Command A+ for cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two h100 gpus, unusually lean for a 218b-parameter model or a 218b-total/25b-active moe released with open weights (apache 2.0) on hugging face. Pick Llama 4 Maverick for open weights, 1m context or strong image + text understanding.
Command A+ (Cohere, Canada) and Llama 4 Maverick (Meta, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Command A+ is cohere's newer, leaner flagship - a 218B open-weight MoE tuned for efficiency (just two GPUs to run) and 48-language support. Llama 4 Maverick is meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Their biggest split is context window, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences at a glance
▸Context window: Llama 4 Maverick holds 3.9× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (unconfirmed) (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Command A+ is the newer model by about 14 months (released May 19, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a Canada-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Command A+
Llama 4 Maverick
Provider
Cohere (Canada)
Meta (US)
Released
May 19, 2026
April 2025
Context window
256K (unconfirmed) (~384 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two H100 GPUs, unusually lean for a 218B-parameter model
Command A+
Cohere's newer, leaner flagship - a 218B open-weight MoE tuned for efficiency (just two GPUs to run) and 48-language support — and it is the newer of the two.
A 218B-total/25B-active MoE released with open weights (Apache 2.0) on Hugging Face
Command A+
Command A+ lists a 218B-total/25B-active MoE released with open weights (Apache 2.0) on Hugging Face among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Supports 48 languages, including all official EU languages
Command A+
Command A+ lists supports 48 languages, including all official EU languages among its strengths; Llama 4 Maverick does not.
Open weights, 1M context
Llama 4 Maverick
Its 1M window holds about 3.9× more than Command A+'s 256K (unconfirmed) in a single prompt.
Strong image + text understanding
Llama 4 Maverick
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Self-hostable
Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick lists self-hostable among its strengths; Command A+ does not.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Maverick
Its 1M window is about 3.9× larger than Command A+'s 256K (unconfirmed), fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Maverick
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two h100 gpus, unusually lean for a 218b-parameter model
→ Command A+
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is open weights, 1m context
→ Llama 4 Maverick
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Llama 4 Maverick or Command A+
Origin (Canada vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Command A+: where it fits
Cohere's newer, leaner flagship - a 218B open-weight MoE tuned for efficiency (just two GPUs to run) and 48-language support. Released May 19, 2026 by Cohere, it is built for cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two H100 GPUs, unusually lean for a 218B-parameter model, a 218B-total/25B-active MoE released with open weights (Apache 2.0) on Hugging Face, supports 48 languages, including all official EU languages, and positioned by Cohere as its 'most efficient and performant model to date'.
Its trade-offs are real: no official context window or per-token price published yet - both are estimated/unavailable, newer release with less independent benchmark verification than established flagships, and enterprise/multilingual focus rather than topping general reasoning leaderboards. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
Llama 4 Maverick: where it fits
Meta's open-weight 1M-context multimodal model for self-hosted deployments. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for open weights, 1M context, strong image + text understanding, self-hostable, and 400B MoE, 17B active.
Its trade-offs: needs serious hardware to self-host, and trails closed frontier on reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Command A+ (Canada) and Llama 4 Maverick (US) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both Command A+ and Llama 4 Maverick without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Command A+ or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Command A+ leans toward cohere's newer, more efficient flagship - runs on just two h100 gpus, unusually lean for a 218b-parameter model while Llama 4 Maverick leans toward open weights, 1m context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Command A+ or Llama 4 Maverick?
They are priced almost identically, so cost will not decide between them.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Maverick — 1M vs 256K (unconfirmed), about 3.9× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Command A+ and Llama 4 Maverick together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Command A+, Llama 4 Maverick and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Command A+ or Llama 4 Maverick?
Command A+ — released May 19, 2026, about 14 months after Llama 4 Maverick.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.