# Command A vs Qwen1.5-32B

> Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-a-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command A leads 36.5 to 13.5.

## Snapshot

| | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 30.0 |
| Rank | 212 | 288 |
| Context | 256K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command A: 26.8 (#317)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1331 | 1155 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command A: 35.7 (#36)
- Qwen1.5-32B: —

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command A: 17.7 (#276)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1131 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |

## Math

- Command A: 33.5 (#172)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1155 |

## Knowledge

- Command A: 36.5 (#157)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1126 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |

## Multilingual

- Command A: 45.5 (#166)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1176 |
| LMArena French | 1352 | 1100 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1283 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1007 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1346 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- Command A: 69.3 (#172)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1116 |

## Long Context

- Command A: 40.6 (#147)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command A: 47.8 (#204)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1338 | 1140 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command A better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Command A or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.1 versus 26.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen1.5-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.