Model comparison
Command A vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 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-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 18.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 61.3% for Command A and 82.9% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1412 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 61.3% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | 29.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1374 |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command A or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.