Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 38.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 17.9% for Command R and 64.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | 67.9% |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | 62.3% |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1369 |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1335 |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | 56.3% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command R or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen2.5-Max share?
24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.