Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Command A+
32
Gemini 3 Pro
81
Pick Gemini 3 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Multimodal
+21.3 difference
Command A+
Gemini 3 Pro
$2.5 / $10
$2 / $12
272 t/s
109 t/s
0.25s
32.65s
128K
2M
Pick Gemini 3 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Gemini 3 Pro is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 81 to 32. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemini 3 Pro's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 81.1 against 59.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 81.4%.
Gemini 3 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.50 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens for Command A+. Command A+ is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemini 3 Pro gives you the larger context window at 2M, compared with 128K for Command A+.
Gemini 3 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 81 to 32. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 81.4%.
Gemini 3 Pro has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 59.8. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.