Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 14B leads 37.0 to 25.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 64% for Qwen3 14B.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.
- Qwen3 14B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 4K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 14B leads
Command R: 28.8 (#301), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Qwen3 14B leads
Command R: 13.3 (#329), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 46.4% | 64% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 18.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3 14B leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | — |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R: 35.9 (#240), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | — |
| LMArena French | 1161 | — |
| LMArena German | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command R: 58.3 (#256), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | — |
Long Context Qwen3 14B leads
Command R: 36.3 (#226), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command R: 38.4 (#248), Qwen3 14B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3 14B?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.
Is Command R or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.7 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 14B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3 14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.