Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 2 shared benchmarks.

Command A

Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B

Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 37.1.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 34.5% for Qwen3.6 27B.
Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command A and Qwen3.6 27B specifications
	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
Provider	Cohere	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	36.5	42.2
Released	2025-03-13	2026-04-22
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	256K	262K
Max output	8K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$2.50	$0.60
Output $ / M tokens	$10	$3.60
Results tracked	24	11

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
Aider Polyglot	12%	—
SciCode	—	37.3%
LMArena Coding	1330	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	57.1%	—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
DTBench	61.3%	78.1%
LMCA	10.3%	34.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark	28.8%	—
CritPt	—	0.9%
Chess Puzzles	—	22%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1326	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	7%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	146.5

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	91.1%
LMArena Math	1300	—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond	—	85.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	9.3%	—
LMArena Expert	1295	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
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), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following	1309	—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query	1334	—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Command A	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text	1331	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1319	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1145	—
EQ-Bench 4	—	1026
LMArena Multi-Turn	1339	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.6 27B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.