Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen3-30B-A3B
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3-30B-A3B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3-30B-A3B leads 22.2 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 22.4% for Qwen3-30B-A3B.
- Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Command R+ accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 41K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 38.9 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-04-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 41K |
| Max output | 4K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.5 (#194)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1416 |
| SciCode | — | 33.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 29.8% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen3-30B-A3B: 29.8 (#82)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 22.2 (#204)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1398 |
| DTBench | 54.9% | 69.3% |
| LMCA | 5% | 22.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 139.63 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 8% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 37.4 (#157)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1394 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 47.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 70.3% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 41.8 (#105)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1396 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 70.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 49.5 (#132)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1372 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1433 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1418 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1380 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1337 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1331 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1370 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1404 |
Instruction Following Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 72.0 (#142)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1363 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context Command R+ leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 31.0 (#283)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1379 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 40.6% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-30B-A3B leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3-30B-A3B: 55.6 (#143)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1384 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1317 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1378 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 75.3% |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.9 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3-30B-A3B?
Qwen3-30B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen3-30B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3-30B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.5 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command R+ does, with 128K tokens against 41K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3-30B-A3B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-30B-A3B has 32.