# Command A vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-a-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command A leads 37.1 to 11.5.

## Snapshot

| | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.5 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 215 | 285 |
| Context | 256K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command A: 27.2 (#322)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1330 | 1165 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command A: 35.9 (#40)
- Qwen1.5-72B: —

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command A: 18.3 (#283)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1148 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |

## Math

- Command A: 36.2 (#171)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1164 |

## Knowledge

- Command A: 37.1 (#159)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command A: 45.3 (#170)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1351 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1285 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Command A: 69.1 (#177)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1141 |

## Long Context

- Command A: 40.6 (#151)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command A: 47.6 (#208)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1339 | 1160 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command A better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.5 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Command A or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.9 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen1.5-72B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.