Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Command R leads 28.0 to 12.6.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.429.0
Released2024-08-302024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$0.70
Results tracked2915

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%37.6%
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%46.1%
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
LMArena Coding1169—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BALROG—7.8%

Reasoning Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
DTBench46.4%47.7%
LMCA9.2%6.4%
Chess Puzzles—0%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1164—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.51
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Command R leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—2.5%
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LiveBench Math19.4%—
LMArena Math1155—

Knowledge Command R leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
MMLU65.2%72.9%
GPQA Diamond—35.5%
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1138—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1174—
LMArena Chinese1182—
LMArena French1162—
LMArena German1176—
LMArena Japanese1143—
LMArena Korean1163—
LMArena Russian1174—
LMArena Spanish1151—

Instruction Following Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1167—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1198—

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1187—
LMArena Creative Writing1170—
WildBench—73.1%
LMArena Multi-Turn1163—
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

Is Command R or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.5 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper