Model comparison
Command A+ vs Sakana Fugu-Ultra
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Command A+ #135 (Estimated); Sakana Fugu-Ultra unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Command A+ and Sakana Fugu-Ultra share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Command A+; 10 to Sakana Fugu-Ultra.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Command A+ only
- 20
- Sakana Fugu-Ultra only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Command A+ makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Sakana Fugu-Ultra is the better fit if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Command A+ and Sakana Fugu-Ultra finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Sakana Fugu-Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Command A+.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Command A+ | Δ | Sakana Fugu-Ultra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Command A+59.3 | Margin→ 27.3 | Sakana Fugu-Ultra86.6 |
| Agentic | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Sakana Fugu-Ultra82.1 |
| Coding | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Sakana Fugu-Ultra64.5 |
| Reasoning | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Sakana Fugu-Ultra93.6 |
| Knowledge | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Sakana Fugu-Ultra95.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 52.7%B 86.6%Winner: Sakana Fugu-UltraΔ 33.9CharXiv: Command A+ scored 52.7%; Sakana Fugu-Ultra scored 86.6%. Sakana Fugu-Ultra wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Command A+ | Sakana Fugu-Ultra | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Command A+$2.5 input / $10 output | Sakana Fugu-UltraNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Command A+272 tok/s | Sakana Fugu-UltraNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Command A+0.25 s | Sakana Fugu-UltraNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Command A+128K | Sakana Fugu-Ultra1M | Sakana Fugu-Ultra lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic6 benchmarks
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Sakana Fugu-Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 27.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 37.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 73.7% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Sakana Fugu-Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 76.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 11.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -4.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 8.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 14.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 95.5% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 95.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
MultimodalSakana Fugu-Ultra wins4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Sakana Fugu-Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.9% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Command A+ or Sakana Fugu-Ultra?
Command A+ and Sakana Fugu-Ultra are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Command A+ or Sakana Fugu-Ultra?
Sakana Fugu-Ultra has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 86.6 versus 59.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.