Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs Qwen3.5-9B

Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.4

Rank #272 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #236 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 31.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 71.2% for Qwen3.5-9B.
  • Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for Command R.
  • Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RQwen3.5-9B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.433.8
Released2024-08-302026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$0.15
Results tracked2910

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
SciCode—27.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%—
LiveBench Coding17.9%—
LMArena Coding1169—
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench—9.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
DTBench46.4%71.2%
LMCA9.2%24.5%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—12%
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1164—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—139.46
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—48.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—61.7%
LiveBench Math19.4%—
LMArena Math1155—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads

Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond—79%
LMArena Expert1138—
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
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), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—
LMArena Instruction Following1167—

Long Context Not comparable

Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Longer Query1198—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkCommand RQwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text1187—
LMArena Creative Writing1170—
LMArena Multi-Turn1163—
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Command R lists at $0.15 and $0.60.

Is Command R or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3.5-9B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper