Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3 Coder Next

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

35.9

Rank #212 Confirmed

Qwen3 Coder Next Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #229 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 Coder Next leads 35.8 to 26.8.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Command A and Qwen3 Coder Next specifications
Command AQwen3 Coder Next
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.933.8
Released2025-03-132026-02-02
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K262K
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.80
Results tracked243

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 Coder Next leads

Command A: 26.8 (#317), Qwen3 Coder Next: 35.8 (#206)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
Aider Polyglot12%—
SciCode—32.3%
WeirdML—34.4%
LMArena Coding1331—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.7 (#36), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—

Reasoning Qwen3 Coder Next leads

Command A: 17.7 (#276), Qwen3 Coder Next: 21.7 (#191)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
CritPt—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
DTBench61.3%—
LMCA10.3%—

Math Not comparable

Command A: 33.5 (#172), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Math1300—

Knowledge Not comparable

Command A: 36.5 (#157), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%—
LMArena Expert1295—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.5 (#166), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
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 Coder Next: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Not comparable

Command A: 40.6 (#147), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.8 (#204), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1338—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3 Coder Next?

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3 Coder Next?

Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

Qwen3 Coder Next scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 26.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3 Coder Next share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper