Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Command R+ and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (32.4 vs 33.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 21.2 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 19.1% for Command R+ and 56.9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Command R+ accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 33K |
| Max output | 4K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Command R+ leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | 77% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 119.49 |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | 46.2% |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1251 |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Command R+ leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1221 |
| MMLU | 69.4% | 79.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
Multilingual Too close to call
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | — |
| LMArena German | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1223 |
Long Context Too close to call
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Command R+ leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Command R+ and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (32.4 vs 33.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Command R+ scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.1 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command R+ does, with 128K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.