Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 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 0 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads 27.2 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 54.9% for Command R+ and 84.3% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper at $0.40 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 42.1 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $3.20 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1436 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1360 |
| SciCode | — | 35.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1421 |
| DTBench | 54.9% | 84.3% |
| LMCA | 5% | 32.2% |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 51.7% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 51.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1432 |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | 11.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1432 |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1245 |
Multilingual Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1400 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1442 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1426 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1367 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1352 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1400 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1424 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1410 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1417 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1368 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1416 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.