Model comparison
Command R vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in instruction following, where QwQ-32B leads 72.6 to 58.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Reasoning: 21.9% for Command R and 83.5% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Command R | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 29.3 (#306), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | 65% |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | 72% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 28.0 (#246), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1324 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 35.7 (#245), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | 1354 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 58.1 (#261), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1297 |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 36.3 (#231), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Command R: 38.2 (#254), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Command R | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | 51.4% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command R or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command R and QwQ-32B share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.