Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 19 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 32B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 32B leads 37.7 to 27.2.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 12% for Command A and 40% for Qwen3 32B.
Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B specifications
	Command A	Qwen3 32B
Provider	Cohere	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	36.5	39.2
Released	2025-03-13	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	131K
Max output	8K	16K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$2.80
Results tracked	24	26

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
Aider Polyglot	12%	40%
LMArena Coding	1330	1358
SciCode	—	35.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	48.7%

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	54.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	1334
DTBench	61.3%	67.5%
LMCA	10.3%	17.3%
CritPt	—	0.3%
Chess Puzzles	—	5%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	138.51

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Math	1300	1399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	66.9%

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	5.9%
LMArena Expert	1295	1362
GPQA Diamond	—	65.7%

Multilingual Too close to call

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English	1313	1317
LMArena Chinese	1327	1357
LMArena German	1341	1341
LMArena Russian	1314	1311
LMArena French	1351	—
LMArena Japanese	1285	—
LMArena Korean	1285	—
LMArena Spanish	1347	—

Instruction Following Too close to call

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	1305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query	1334	1327
Fiction.LiveBench	—	74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text	1331	1340
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	1297
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	1331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.