# Command R vs Qwen1.5-7B

> Command R and Qwen1.5-7B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (31.0 vs 30.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-vs-qwen1-5-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Command R leads 38.4 to 29.8.

## Snapshot

| | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 267 | 270 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R: 28.8 (#301)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1107 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R: 13.3 (#329)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1066 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |

## Math

- Command R: 25.8 (#244)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1080 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R: 30.5 (#219)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1055 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | 62.6% |

## Multilingual

- Command R: 35.9 (#240)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | — |
| LMArena German | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Command R: 58.3 (#256)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1058 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R: 36.3 (#226)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1090 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R: 38.4 (#248)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1061 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R better than Qwen1.5-7B?

Command R and Qwen1.5-7B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (31.0 vs 30.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Is Command R or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.6 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen1.5-7B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.