Model Profile
Command A (03-2025)
Use this page to decide where this model is a strong fit. Rankings below are benchmark-backed by use case, with explicit confidence and contributor metrics.
Identity
ID: external/cohere/command-a-03-2025
Author: cohere
Origin: external_benchmark_shadow
Arch: unknown
Benchmark Coverage
Scored use cases: 12
Avg confidence: 27.7%
Evidence points: 200
Raw rows: 395
Weighted rows: 28
Catalog Metadata
Parameters: unknown
Context window: 4096
Downloads: 0
Intelligence Profile
Dimension Breakdown
No eq benchmarks found
No accuracy benchmarks found
No creativity benchmarks found
No based benchmarks found
1/5 dimensions scored · Last updated Apr 21, 2026
Benchmark Signals
Click through to the benchmark source behind this model profile.
Vals Legal Bench
overall_accuracy_pct
Normalized value 83.7% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Contract Drafting & Redlining
vals_legal_bench.overall_accuracy_pct · Mar 31, 2026
Vals Case Law v2
overall_accuracy_pct
Normalized value 65.7% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Contract Drafting & Redlining
vals_case_law_v2.overall_accuracy_pct · Mar 31, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
overall_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 65.4% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Cross-paper contradiction analysis
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.overall_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
overall_answer_rate_pct
Normalized value 93.6% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Cross-paper contradiction analysis
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.overall_answer_rate_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vectara HHEM Leaderboard
science_hallucination_error_pct
Normalized value 80.0% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Cross-paper contradiction analysis
vectara_hhem_leaderboard.science_hallucination_error_pct · Apr 1, 2026
Vals CorpFin v2
overall_accuracy_pct
Normalized value 35.4% · confidence 100.0%
Strongest impact in Thesis red teaming
vals_corp_fin_v2.overall_accuracy_pct · Mar 31, 2026
Some fit rows have limited benchmark evidence.
6 of 12 scored use cases have low confidence or thin contributor coverage.
Coverage Diagnostics
actively scoredUse-Case Scores
103
Total Measurements
395
Weighted Measurements
28
Weighted Sources
11
Raw Source Coverage
Weighted Source Coverage
Best Use Cases for This Model
| Use Case | Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Drafting & Redlining use_case.legal.contract_drafting | 14.6% |
| Contract Q&A (RAG grounded) use_case.legal.contract_qna | 12.5% |
| Thesis red teaming use_case.fin.thesis_red_team | 12.5% |
| Regulatory summary use_case.legal.regulatory_summary | 12.3% |
| Contract redline summary use_case.legal.contract_redline_summary | 11.8% |
| Clause playbook check use_case.legal.playbook_clause_check | 11.4% |
| Contract term extraction use_case.legal.contract_term_extraction | 11.4% |
| Earnings call synthesis use_case.fin.earnings_call_synthesis | 11.3% |
| Transaction anomaly narrative use_case.fin.transaction_anomaly_narrative | 11.1% |
| KYC profile synthesis use_case.fin.kyc_profile_synthesis | 10.6% |
| AML alert triage use_case.fin.aml_alert_triage | 10.6% |
| Cross-paper contradiction analysis use_case.bio.paper_contradictions | 10.4% |