# Command R+ vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 21

## Summary

- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command R+ leads 36.4 to 11.5.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 257 | 285 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R+: 29.1 (#309)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 9.2 (#344)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1148 |
| 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)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1164 |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 36.4 (#169)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.6 (#227)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1186 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1159 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.0 (#254)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1141 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#219)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.5 (#228)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1160 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |

## FAQ

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

Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen1.5-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.9 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

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

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.