Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads 60.2 to 38.2.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B.
- Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 43.2 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 4K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1439 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1428 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1426 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1442 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1247 |
Multilingual Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1405 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1463 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1424 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1385 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1394 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1408 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1428 |
Instruction Following Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1406 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1420 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1420 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1366 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1428 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?
Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?
Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Command R or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?
Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.