Noometry

Model comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Command R+ Cohere

32.4

Rank #257 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 28.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 34.5% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
  • Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command R+Qwen3.6 27B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.442.2
Released2024-08-302026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$10$3.60
Results tracked3411

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
SciCode—37.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.8%—
LiveBench Coding19.1%—
LMArena Coding1187—
BigCodeBench Complete41.9%—
HumanEval+56.7%—
MBPP+63.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
DTBench54.9%78.1%
LMCA5%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.34146.5
SimpleBench17.4%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LiveBench Reasoning24.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1186—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
LiveBench Data Analysis38.1%—
LiveBench31.8%—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
LiveBench Math21.3%—
LMArena Math1188—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond—85.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate6.9%—
LMArena Expert1174—
MMLU69.4%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1216—
LMArena Chinese1226—
LMArena French1209—
LMArena German1216—
LMArena Japanese1166—
LMArena Korean1138—
LMArena Russian1227—
LMArena Spanish1189—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
LiveBench Instruction Following57.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1197—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1230—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkCommand R+Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1229—
LMArena Creative Writing1235—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1213—
LiveBench Language29.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B 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 Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.6 27B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper