# Command R+ vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 32.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 25

## Summary

- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Max in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 24.6 to 8.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 19.1% for Command R+ and 64.4% for Qwen2.5-Max.
- Command R+ has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.0 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 251 | 142 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $10 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Command R+: 28.6 (#304)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 8.9 (#341)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.28 | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | 62.3% |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |

## Math

- Command R+: 26.6 (#239)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1369 |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 35.9 (#165)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.8 (#222)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1208 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.2 (#249)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1335 |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#214)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.7 (#223)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | 56.3% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |

## FAQ

### Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 32.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Command R+ or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5-Max share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.