# Command R+ vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

> Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-plus-vs-qwen3-6-35b-a3b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 28.0 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 29.7% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 37.6 |
| Rank | 257 | 201 |
| Context | 128K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $1.49 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R+: 29.1 (#309)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.2 (#196)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |
| 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+: —
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 22.1 (#134)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |

## Reasoning

- Command R+: 9.2 (#344)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 28.0 (#109)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 54.9% | 73.9% |
| LMCA | 5% | 29.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 143.93 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |

## Math

- Command R+: 28.9 (#242)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 38.9 (#121)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R+: 36.4 (#169)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.3 (#68)

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R+: 38.6 (#227)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | — |
| LMArena French | 1209 | — |
| LMArena German | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Command R+: 60.0 (#254)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | — |

## Long Context

- Command R+: 37.3 (#219)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R+: 43.5 (#228)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —

| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.6 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.

### Is Command R+ or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.2 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.