# Command R+ vs Llama 3.2 11B

> Command R+ has enough public results to be ranked (#251); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-llama-3-2-11b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 32.0 | 31.6 |
| Rank | 251 | — |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R+: 28.6 (#304)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command R+: —
- Llama 3.2 11B: 27.0

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 16.8% |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 8.9 (#341)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.28 | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |

## Math

- Command R+: 26.6 (#239)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 35.9 (#165)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 69.4% | 56.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | — |

## Multimodal

- Command R+: —
- Llama 3.2 11B: 23.8

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 966 |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.8 (#222)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | — |
| LMArena French | 1208 | — |
| LMArena German | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.2 (#249)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | — |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#214)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.7 (#223)
- Llama 3.2 11B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 11B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R+ better than Llama 3.2 11B?

Command R+ has enough public results to be ranked (#251); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Llama 3.2 11B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 11B has 3.