# Command R vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.6 to 38.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 17.9% 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 | 31.0 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 267 | 142 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Command R: 28.8 (#301)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R: 13.3 (#329)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | 67.9% |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | 62.3% |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |

## Math

- Command R: 25.8 (#244)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1369 |

## Knowledge

- Command R: 30.5 (#219)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R: 35.9 (#240)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R: 58.3 (#256)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1335 |

## Long Context

- Command R: 36.3 (#226)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R: 38.4 (#248)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | 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 31.0 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 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.

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

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.