Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Max in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 25.6 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 19.1% for Command R+ and 64.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
- Command R+ has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | 62.3% |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1369 |
Knowledge Command R+ leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1335 |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | 56.3% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command R+ or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5-Max share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.