Model comparison
Command A vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads 60.0 to 47.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 61.3% for Command A and 84.3% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper at $0.40 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.
Side by side
| Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 42.1 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 256K | 262K |
| Max output | 8K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $3.20 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1436 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1360 |
| SciCode | — | 35.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1421 |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 84.3% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 32.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 51.7% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 51.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
Math Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1432 |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 11.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1432 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command A: —, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1245 |
Multilingual Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1400 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1442 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1426 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1367 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1352 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1400 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1424 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1399 |
Long Context Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1410 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1417 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1368 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1416 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command A or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.