Cohere API token pricing (serverless, per 1M tokens, 2026-10-04 list price)

USD per 1M TOKENS, LIST PRICE, observed 2026-10-04. Command family: Command-light $0.30 input / $0.60 output; Command R 03-2024 $0.50 / $1.50; Command (current) $1.00 / $2.00; Command R+ 04-2024 $3.00 / $15.00; Command R+ 08-2024 $2.50 / $10.00. Aya Expanse 8B and 32B on the API $0.50 input / $1.50 output. price_usd = Command-light input. The page also carries seat pricing ($3.00/$5.00-class figures at $2,000-$6,500 tiers) which are CONSOLE subscriptions, not API rates - do not mix them PERISHABLE-FIGURE STAMP (added 2026-10-04, uniform across data/supply/ so it is greppable). PRICE CLASS: PUBLISHED LIST PRICE - an asking rate a new customer is quoted, NOT a realised, discounted or negotiated transaction rate. A real bill is at or below this and typically well below it once commitments, credits and committed-use discounts apply. OBSERVED: 2026-10-04 RE-VERIFY BY: 2027-01-04 - the repo's quarterly re-verification bar. After that date this figure is presumed drifted and must be re-checked against its source before it is quoted again. A price without its observation date is noise; this stamp exists so a reader can tell a fresh figure from a stale one without reading prose. UNIT: USD per 1M TOKENS, LIST PRICE, observed 2026-10-04 READING RULE: No further perishable flag is published for this figure.

lead_time_weeks is null because NO NUMBER APPLIES, and the reason is specific rather than generic: this record prices a metered service term (tokens, egress, storage) rather than hardware capacity, so there is no order-to-delivery interval to report at all. Calling this 'no published lead time' would be wrong in the other direction - nothing was withheld.

no EAR citation: no controlled item is transferred by this transaction; not an EAR citation: provider service terms and end-use policy (the AI Diffusion Rule briefly tiered service access before its 2025-05-13 rescission)

MECHANISM: a token-priced API, so no accelerator crosses a border and the 3A090 hardware licence regime does not attach to the transaction. Export control becomes an END-USER AND TERMS question instead: the provider applies geographic and end-use restrictions to service access, and a customer can still be refused under sanctions or end-use policy wherever the compute sits. A reader targeting a restricted destination should read the provider's terms, not the EAR.

Cohere is the outlier here in that its headline chat model is not the cheapest thing it sells: the OLDER Command-light at $0.30/$0.60 is less than half the price of current Command at $1.00/$2.00. Anyone reading 'Cohere costs $1/$2' as the family rate is quoting the wrong row for anyone optimizing cost. Second observation: the versioned R+ snapshots span $2.50-$3.00 in and $10-$15 out on the SAME nominal model name, i.e. a version bump can move price by 40% in either direction, so pin the exact model version in any cost model. Cohere's billing floor matters too: API calls from a Trial key are free, production keys bill at end of calendar month or once $250 is outstanding. No GPU hourly rate published - Cohere's serving hardware is not a product. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04): NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HARDWARE-SHIPMENT SENSE - this record prices a token-based API, so no accelerator is transferred across a border and the ECCN 3A090 hardware licence regime does not attach to the transaction. Recorded null rather than false precisely because a token API is where export control instead becomes an END-USER/TERMS question: the provider applies geographic and end-user restrictions to service access (the AI Diffusion Rule briefly put a tiered country structure on exactly this kind of service before being rescinded on 2025-05-13), and a customer can still be refused under sanctions or end-use policy regardless of where the compute sits. Anyone reading this record for a restricted destination should look at the provider's terms, not at the EAR. Sources for the regime: spl-bis-2025-05-ai-diffusion-rescission, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04): NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HARDWARE-SHIPMENT SENSE - this record prices a token-based API, so no accelerator crosses a border and the ECCN 3A090 hardware licence regime does not attach to the transaction. Recorded NULL rather than false precisely because a token API is where export control instead becomes an END-USER and TERMS question: the provider applies geographic and end-user restrictions to service access (the AI Diffusion Rule briefly put a tiered country structure on exactly this kind of service before being rescinded and unenforced from 2025-05-13), and a customer can still be refused under sanctions or end-use policy regardless of where the compute sits. For a restricted destination, read the provider's terms, not the EAR. Sources: spl-bis-2025-05-ai-diffusion-rescission, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance. LEAD TIME: null - correct and not a gap. A token-priced serverless API is provisioned on request, so there is no lead time to publish; the binding constraint when a model is at capacity is provider-side queuing and any per-account concurrency limit, which this repo records in notes where a vendor publishes one (see the DeepSeek concurrency figures already here). Deliberately NOT recorded: any 'model capacity lead time' estimate, because vendors publish none and the SEO 'GPU lead time' numbers that circulate do not apply to a rented endpoint. Probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.