# Command R vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

> Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-vs-qwen2-5-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 25.9 to 13.8.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 272 | 181 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Command R: 29.3 (#306)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | 1314 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R: 13.8 (#331)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |

## Math

- Command R: 28.0 (#246)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1298 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R: 31.0 (#221)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1289 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Command R: 35.7 (#245)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1162 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Command R: 58.1 (#261)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R: 36.3 (#231)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1292 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R: 38.2 (#254)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1299 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Command R or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 29.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.