Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Command R+ has enough public results to be ranked (#257); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | — |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 113.14 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 76.8% |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 72.9% |
Math Not comparable
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | — |
| GSM8K | — | 86.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 69.4% | 68% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 60.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | — |
| LMArena French | 1209 | — |
| LMArena German | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)?
Command R+ has enough public results to be ranked (#257); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) has 6.