Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in math, where Command A leads 36.2 to 16.2.
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Command A and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct specifications
	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Provider	Cohere	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	36.5	30.1
Released	2025-03-13	2024-09
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	131K
Max output	8K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$2.80
Results tracked	24	7

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Aider Polyglot	12%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	45%
LMArena Coding	1330	—
BigCodeBench Complete	—	52.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	—

Reasoning Too close to call

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	—
DTBench	61.3%	—
LMCA	10.3%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	128.52

Math Command A leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	7.4%
LMArena Math	1300	—
MATH Level 5	—	56.1%

Knowledge Command A leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond	—	46.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—
LMArena Expert	1295	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English	1313	—
LMArena Chinese	1327	—
LMArena French	1351	—
LMArena German	1341	—
LMArena Japanese	1285	—
LMArena Korean	1285	—
LMArena Russian	1314	—
LMArena Spanish	1347	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query	1334	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text	1331	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.