Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

35.9

Rank #212 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #103 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 Plus in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 47.9 to 33.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 36.4% for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
  • Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command AQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.942.3
Released2025-03-132026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window256K1M
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.40
Results tracked2415

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command A: 26.8 (#317), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena Coding1331—
ALE-Bench—621.92

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.7 (#36), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 17.7 (#276), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.0 (#67)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
DTBench61.3%80.5%
LMCA10.3%36.4%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.79

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 33.5 (#172), Qwen3.5 Plus: 47.9 (#55)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1300—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 36.5 (#157), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#78)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%10.7%
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
LMArena Expert1295—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.5 (#166), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Non-English1313—
LMArena Chinese1327—
LMArena French1352—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Japanese1283—
LMArena Korean1285—
LMArena Russian1314—
LMArena Spanish1346—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.3 (#172), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 40.6 (#147), Qwen3.5 Plus: 42.9 (#109)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.8 (#204), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1338—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

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

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper