Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 49.2 to 18.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 44% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper at $2.50 / $7.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
  • Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command AQwen3.7 Max
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.551.5
Released2025-03-132026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window256K1M
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$10$7.50
Results tracked2433

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding13301498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts13261483
DTBench61.3%92.3%
LMCA10.3%44%
SimpleBench—70.4%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math13001490
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert12951488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English13131474
LMArena Chinese13271530
LMArena Russian13141484
LMArena French1351—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Japanese1285—
LMArena Korean1285—
LMArena Spanish1347—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following13091460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query13341482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text13311476
LMArena Creative Writing13191449
LMArena Multi-Turn13391481
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.7 Max share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper