Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 32B leads 52.9 to 38.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 67.5% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RQwen3 32B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.439.2
Released2024-08-302025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$2.80
Results tracked2926

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Coding11691358
Aider Polyglot—40%
SciCode—35.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts11641334
DTBench46.4%67.5%
LMCA9.2%17.3%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Math11551399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
LiveBench Math19.4%—

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Expert11381362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English11741317
LMArena Chinese11821357
LMArena German11761341
LMArena Russian11741311
LMArena French1162—
LMArena Japanese1143—
LMArena Korean1163—
LMArena Spanish1151—

Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following11671305
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query11981327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3 32B
LMArena Text11871340
LMArena Creative Writing11701297
LMArena Multi-Turn11631331
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3 32B?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Command R or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3 32B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper