# Command R+ vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

> Command R+ and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (32.4 vs 31.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-qwen2-5-72b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 6 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 72B Instruct leads 22.3 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 41.9% for Command R+ and 55.9% for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper at $1.40 / $5.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 31.9 |
| Rank | 257 | 267 |
| Context | 128K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | $1.40 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $5.60 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R+: 29.1 (#309)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 45.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1292 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 55.9% |
| WeirdML | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Command R+: —
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 5.7% |
| BALROG | — | 16.2% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 35.8% |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 9.2 (#344)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1271 |
| DTBench | 54.9% | 62.9% |
| LMCA | 5% | 13.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 129 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 79.8% |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
| HellaSwag | — | 84.8% |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
| PIQA | — | 82.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 82.3% |

## Math

- Command R+: 28.9 (#242)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1283 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 33% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 63.2% |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 36.4 (#169)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1245 |
| MMLU | 69.4% | 85.3% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 49.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 63.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 19.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 94.5% |
| TriviaQA | — | 71.9% |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.6 (#227)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1272 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1280 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1234 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1180 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1188 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1264 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1256 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.0 (#254)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1254 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
| IFEval | — | 80.6% |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#219)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1282 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.5 (#228)
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1269 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1221 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1272 |
| WildBench | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Command R+ and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (32.4 vs 31.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $5.60 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

### Is Command R+ or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.2 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.