Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B'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 Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 30.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 78.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Command R: 28.8 (#301), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Command R: 13.3 (#329), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 46.4% | 78.1% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 34.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | — |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R: 35.9 (#240), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command R: 36.3 (#226), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Command R: 38.4 (#248), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3.6 27B?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Command R or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3.6 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.