Model comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen Turbo

Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R+'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

Qwen Turbo Alibaba (Qwen)

27.1

Rank #335 Reported

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command R+ leads 36.4 to 22.2.
  • Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Command R+ has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command R+ and Qwen Turbo specifications
Command R+Qwen Turbo
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.427.1
Released2024-08-302024-11-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output4K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.20
Results tracked343

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen Turbo: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
LMArena Coding1187—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen Turbo: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
SimpleBench17.4%—
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1186—
DTBench54.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LMCA5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math Command R+ leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—6.1%
LiveBench Math21.3%—
LMArena Math1188—
MATH Level 5—56.2%

Knowledge Command R+ leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
GPQA Diamond—41.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%—
LMArena Expert1174—
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen Turbo: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
LMArena Non-English1216—
LMArena Chinese1226—
LMArena French1209—
LMArena German1216—
LMArena Japanese1166—
LMArena Korean1138—
LMArena Russian1227—
LMArena Spanish1189—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen Turbo: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1197—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen Turbo: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
LMArena Longer Query1230—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen Turbo: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen Turbo
LMArena Text1229—
LMArena Creative Writing1235—
LMArena Multi-Turn1213—
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than Qwen Turbo?

Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R+'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen Turbo?

Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen Turbo share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper