Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

37.6

Rank #201 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.3 to 37.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 29.7% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
  • Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.537.6
Released2025-03-132026-04-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K262K
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.49
Results tracked2414

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
Aider Polyglot12%—
SciCode—35.8%
WeirdML—34.5%
LMArena Coding1330—

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
Terminal-Bench—23%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
DTBench61.3%73.9%
LMCA10.3%29.7%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—41.6%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—26%
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
Mystery Game Puzzles—22%
Surface Evolver Bench—44.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.93

Math Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—20.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1300—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1295—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English1313—
LMArena Chinese1327—
LMArena French1351—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Japanese1285—
LMArena Korean1285—
LMArena Russian1314—
LMArena Spanish1347—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.6 35B-A3B
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1339—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.2 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper