Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 47.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 34% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command AQwen3.5 27B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.541.9
Released2025-03-132026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K262K
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.40
Results tracked2428

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding13301427
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13261414
DTBench61.3%82.4%
LMCA10.3%34%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math13001429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Too close to call

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%12.1%
LMArena Expert12951428

Multimodal Not comparable

Command A: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13131390
LMArena Chinese13271478
LMArena French13511410
LMArena German13411393
LMArena Japanese12851345
LMArena Korean12851358
LMArena Russian13141390
LMArena Spanish13471407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13091393

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query13341413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text13311409
LMArena Creative Writing13191362
LMArena Multi-Turn13391410
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.5 27B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper