Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Command A leads 35.9 to 18.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 28.8% for Command A and 36% for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Both cost about the same: $2.50 input and $10 output per million tokens.
  • Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Command AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.529.9
Released2025-03-132024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K131K
Max output8K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$10$8.40
Results tracked246

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena Coding1330—

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
OSWorld—5%

Reasoning Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%36%
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
DTBench61.3%—
LMCA10.3%—

Math Not comparable

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Math1300—

Knowledge Not comparable

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1295—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command A: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision—1107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1313—
LMArena Chinese1327—
LMArena French1351—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Japanese1285—
LMArena Korean1285—
LMArena Russian1314—
LMArena Spanish1347—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1339—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $2.80 per million input tokens and $8.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper