Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 58.2 to 38.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 82.9% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for Command R.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 28.8 (#301), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1412 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 13.3 (#329), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 29.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.98 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1408 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 35.9 (#240), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1399 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 58.3 (#256), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 36.3 (#226), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Command R: 38.4 (#248), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Command R lists at $0.15 and $0.60.
Is Command R or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.9 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.