Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 41.7 to 13.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 87.2% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.30 / $7.80 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 42.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.24 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1465 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1478 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1438 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1456 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Max Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Max Preview lists at $1.30 and $7.80.
Is Command R or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.