Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.5 to 27.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 41.4% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command AQwen3.8 27B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.546.0
Released2025-03-132026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K262K
Max output8K33K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.49
Results tracked2431

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding13301482
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena WebDev—1593
SciCode—46.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13261460
DTBench61.3%88%
LMCA10.3%41.4%
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Too close to call

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math13001456
ProofBench—16%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert12951482
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command A: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English13131430
LMArena Chinese13271504
LMArena French13511465
LMArena German13411438
LMArena Japanese12851384
LMArena Korean12851393
LMArena Russian13141415
LMArena Spanish13471448

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13091439

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query13341450

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text13311441
LMArena Creative Writing13191384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing11451671
LMArena Multi-Turn13391441

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.8 27B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper