Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen1.5-14B
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 21.4 to 13.8.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-14B leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1138 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-14B leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1113 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-14B leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1125 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
Knowledge Command R leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1094 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | 68.6% |
Multilingual Command R leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | — |
Instruction Following Command R leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1102 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Command R leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Command R leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command R or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.1 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen1.5-14B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.