# Command R+ vs Qwen1.5-32B

> Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-qwen1-5-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command R+ leads 36.4 to 13.5.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 30.5 |
| Rank | 257 | 293 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R+: 29.1 (#309)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 32.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 42% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 9.2 (#344)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1130 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |

## Math

- Command R+: 28.9 (#242)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1155 |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 36.4 (#169)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1126 |
| MMLU | 69.4% | 74.4% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 30.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.6 (#227)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1177 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1101 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1089 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.0 (#254)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1116 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#219)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1146 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.5 (#228)
- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1140 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |

## FAQ

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

Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen1.5-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

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

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.