Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 35B-A3B'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 35B-A3B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.3 to 31.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 73.9% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $1.49 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 37.6 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 46.4% | 73.9% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 29.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.93 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | — |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | — |
| LMArena French | 1162 | — |
| LMArena German | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 35B-A3B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.
Is Command R or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.2 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.