Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.5-9B

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 39× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 2 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B

Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #236 Confirmed

Summary

They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 3 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Command A leads 35.9 to 14.5.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 24.5% for Qwen3.5-9B.
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command A and Qwen3.5-9B specifications
	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
Provider	Cohere	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	36.5	33.8
Released	2025-03-13	2026-02-23
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	262K
Max output	8K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.10
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$0.15
Results tracked	24	10

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
Aider Polyglot	12%	—
SciCode	—	27.5%
LMArena Coding	1330	—

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench	—	9.2%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
DTBench	61.3%	71.2%
LMCA	10.3%	24.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	—
CritPt	—	0.3%
Chess Puzzles	—	12%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	139.46

Math Command A leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	—	48.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	61.7%
LMArena Math	1300	—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond	—	79%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—
LMArena Expert	1295	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Non-English	1313	—
LMArena Chinese	1327	—
LMArena French	1351	—
LMArena German	1341	—
LMArena Japanese	1285	—
LMArena Korean	1285	—
LMArena Russian	1314	—
LMArena Spanish	1347	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Longer Query	1334	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.5-9B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text	1331	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.5-9B?

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.5-9B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.