Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3 Max
Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 9.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
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 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 Max leads 62.4 to 38.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 82.1% for Qwen3 Max.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1.20 / $6 for Qwen3 Max.
- Qwen3 Max accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 43.7 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-09-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $1.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3 Max: 43.0 (#93)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1456 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 370.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3 Max: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 71.56 |
Reasoning Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3 Max: 22.6 (#190)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 82.1% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 28.3% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 72.5% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 30.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 142.38 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3 Max: 38.7 (#131)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1446 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#78)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1455 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 72.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48.7% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3 Max: 53.7 (#62)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1449 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1397 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1462 |
Instruction Following Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen3 Max: 74.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1419 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#134)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1438 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 Max leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3 Max: 62.4 (#76)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1402 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1446 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 9.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3 Max?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Max lists at $1.20 and $6.
Is Command R or Qwen3 Max better for coding?
Qwen3 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 Max does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3 Max share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.