Model comparison

Command R vs Qwen Max

Qwen Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Max in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen Max leads 25.1 to 13.8.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • Command R accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.
  • Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command R and Qwen Max specifications
Command RQwen Max
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.434.7
Released2024-08-302024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K33K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$6.40
Results tracked2923

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen Max leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Coding11691288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—

Reasoning Qwen Max leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11641269
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Command R leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Math11551275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
LiveBench Math19.4%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge Too close to call

Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Expert11381248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual Qwen Max leads

Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Non-English11741263
LMArena Chinese11821254
LMArena French11621330
LMArena German11761254
LMArena Japanese11431205
LMArena Korean11631142
LMArena Russian11741274
LMArena Spanish11511290

Instruction Following Qwen Max leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following11671262
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context Qwen Max leads

Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query11981288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference Qwen Max leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand RQwen Max
LMArena Text11871282
LMArena Creative Writing11701248
LMArena Multi-Turn11631277
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Qwen Max?

Qwen Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen Max?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is Command R or Qwen Max better for coding?

Qwen Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.7 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command R does, with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper