# Claude 2.1 vs Command R

> Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-command-r
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Command R in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Command R leads 25.8 to 9.6.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Cohere |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 31.0 |
| Rank | 340 | 267 |
| Context | — | 128K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.15 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- Command R: 28.8 (#301)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 17.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1170 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 45.2% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- Command R: 13.3 (#329)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 46.4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 21.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1164 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 33.3% |
| LMCA | — | 9.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 27.5% |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- Command R: 25.8 (#244)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 19.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1155 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- Command R: 30.5 (#219)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 73.5% | 65.2% |
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1138 |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Command R: 35.9 (#240)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1182 |
| LMArena French | — | 1161 |
| LMArena German | — | 1176 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1143 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1162 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1150 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Command R: 58.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 55.6% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1167 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Command R: 36.3 (#226)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1198 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Command R: 38.4 (#248)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Command R |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1170 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1163 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 16.7% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Command R?

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Command R better for coding?

Command R scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.8 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Command R share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Command R has 29.