Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3-30B-A3B

Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3-30B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.9

Rank #179 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 7 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 37.5 to 27.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 28.8% for Command A and 54.9% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 41K.

Side by side

Command AQwen3-30B-A3B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.538.9
Released2025-03-132025-04-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K41K
Max output8K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.50
Results tracked2432

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Coding13301416
Aider Polyglot12%—
SciCode—33.3%
WeirdML—29.8%

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%41.4%

Reasoning Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%54.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts13261398
DTBench61.3%69.3%
LMCA10.3%22.4%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—139.63

Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Math13001394
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—47.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70.3%

Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Expert12951396
GPQA Diamond—70.1%
Confabulations—12.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Non-English13131372
LMArena Chinese13271433
LMArena French13511418
LMArena German13411380
LMArena Japanese12851337
LMArena Korean12851331
LMArena Russian13141370
LMArena Spanish13471404

Instruction Following Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following13091363

Long Context Command A leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query13341379
Fiction.LiveBench—40.6%

Writing & Preference Qwen3-30B-A3B leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3-30B-A3B
LMArena Text13311384
LMArena Creative Writing13191317
LMArena Multi-Turn13391378
Short-Story Creative Writing—75.3%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3-30B-A3B?

Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?

Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.5 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper