Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 54.9% for Command R+ and 82.9% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R+ has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1412 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 54.9% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 143.98 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1407 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.