# Command R vs Qwen1.5-14B

> Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-vs-qwen1-5-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 20.5 to 13.3.

## Snapshot

| | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 32.1 |
| Rank | 267 | 250 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R: 28.8 (#301)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1138 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R: 13.3 (#329)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1113 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |

## Math

- Command R: 25.8 (#244)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1125 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R: 30.5 (#219)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1094 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | 68.6% |

## Multilingual

- Command R: 35.9 (#240)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1115 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Command R: 58.3 (#256)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1102 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R: 36.3 (#226)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1113 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R: 38.4 (#248)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Command R or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.5 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen1.5-14B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.