Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 27.5 to 9.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 34% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+Qwen3.5 27B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.441.9
Released2024-08-302026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.40
Results tracked3428

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding11871427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
ALE-Bench—349.45
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R+: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts11861414
DTBench54.9%82.4%
LMCA5%34%
SimpleBench17.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math11881429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
LiveBench Math21.3%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%12.1%
LMArena Expert11741428
MMLU69.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R+: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English12161390
LMArena Chinese12261478
LMArena French12091410
LMArena German12161393
LMArena Japanese11661345
LMArena Korean11381358
LMArena Russian12271390
LMArena Spanish11891407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following11971393
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query12301413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text12291409
LMArena Creative Writing12351362
LMArena Multi-Turn12131410
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command R+ or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.5 27B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper