Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 14B leads 38.6 to 28.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 18.2% for Qwen3 14B.
  • Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Qwen3 14B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+Qwen3 14B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.435.5
Released2024-08-302025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.40
Results tracked3412

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
SciCode—31.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
LMArena Coding1187—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R+: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%

Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
DTBench54.9%64%
LMCA5%18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34138.23
SimpleBench17.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—49.1%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1186—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
LiveBench Math21.3%—
LMArena Math1188—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%5.4%
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
LMArena Expert1174—
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
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), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1197—

Long Context Too close to call

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1230—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 14B
LMArena Text1229—
LMArena Creative Writing1235—
LMArena Multi-Turn1213—
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B 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 Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 14B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3 14B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper