Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 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 397B-A17B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads 34.5 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 37.9% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-02-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1465 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1400 |
| 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+: —, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 24.9% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 81.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 84.4% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 97.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 54.9% | 87.5% |
| LMCA | 5% | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 146.65 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 58.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 13% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 65.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1454 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 88.9% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1462 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 86.4% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1263 |
Multilingual Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1500 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1426 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1384 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1429 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1441 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1424 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1442 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1438 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1478 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.