Model comparison
Command R+ vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where QwQ-32B leads 23.7 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Reasoning: 24.8% for Command R+ and 83.5% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Command R+ | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 137.6 |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | 72% |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1324 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1354 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1297 |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | 51.4% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command R+ or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and QwQ-32B share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.