Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Command R+ has enough public results to be ranked (#257); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

38.7

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.7 to 29.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 41.9% for Command R+ and 52.2% for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.438.7
Released2024-08-302024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.40
Results tracked343

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.7 (#191)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%39.8%
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%52.2%
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
LMArena Coding1187—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
SimpleBench17.4%—
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1186—
DTBench54.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LMCA5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math Not comparable

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LiveBench Math21.3%—
LMArena Math1188—

Knowledge Not comparable

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
MMLU69.4%79.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%—
LMArena Expert1174—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
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), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1197—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1230—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1229—
LMArena Creative Writing1235—
LMArena Multi-Turn1213—
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Command R+ has enough public results to be ranked (#257); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command R+ or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper