Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3 32B leads 20.2 to 9.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 54.9% for Command R+ and 67.5% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+Qwen3 32B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.439.2
Released2024-08-302025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.80
Results tracked3426

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding11871358
Aider Polyglot—40%
SciCode—35.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R+: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts11861334
DTBench54.9%67.5%
LMCA5%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34138.51
SimpleBench17.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Math11881399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
LiveBench Math21.3%—

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%5.9%
LMArena Expert11741362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English12161317
LMArena Chinese12261357
LMArena German12161341
LMArena Russian12271311
LMArena French1209—
LMArena Japanese1166—
LMArena Korean1138—
LMArena Spanish1189—

Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following11971305
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query12301327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text12291340
LMArena Creative Writing12351297
LMArena Multi-Turn12131331
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command R+ or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3 32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper