# Command R vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/command-r-vs-qwen3-8-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 19

## Summary

- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 38.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 46.4% for Command R and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
- Command R is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
- Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 45.3 |
| Rank | 267 | 64 |
| Context | 128K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $0.99 |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | $1.49 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Command R: 28.8 (#301)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | 1487 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1592 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Command R: 13.3 (#329)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | 1459 |
| DTBench | 46.4% | 88% |
| LMCA | 9.2% | 41.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |

## Math

- Command R: 25.8 (#244)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1453 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- Command R: 30.5 (#219)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | 1482 |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Command R: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |

## Multilingual

- Command R: 35.9 (#240)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1161 | 1468 |
| LMArena German | 1176 | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | 1444 |

## Instruction Following

- Command R: 58.3 (#256)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | 1436 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |

## Long Context

- Command R: 36.3 (#226)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | 1448 |

## Writing & Preference

- Command R: 38.4 (#248)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | 1382 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | 1443 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Command R better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 31.0 on the Noometry Index. Command R costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Command R or Qwen3.8 27B?

Command R is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.

### Is Command R or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 28.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3.8 27B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.