Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct leads 20.7 to 13.8.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2.80 / $8.40 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.429.9
Released2024-08-302024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$8.40
Results tracked296

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
LMArena Coding1169—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
OSWorld—5%

Reasoning Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark—36%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1164—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Not comparable

Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LiveBench Math19.4%—
LMArena Math1155—

Knowledge Not comparable

Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Expert1138—
MMLU65.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision—1107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1174—
LMArena Chinese1182—
LMArena French1162—
LMArena German1176—
LMArena Japanese1143—
LMArena Korean1163—
LMArena Russian1174—
LMArena Spanish1151—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1167—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1198—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Text1187—
LMArena Creative Writing1170—
LMArena Multi-Turn1163—
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper