Model comparison
Command A vs Qwen Turbo
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Command A leads 33.5 to 14.5.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Command A: 26.8 (#317), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1331 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.7 (#36), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Command A: 17.7 (#276), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
Math Command A leads
Command A: 33.5 (#172), Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1300 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge Command A leads
Command A: 36.5 (#157), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command A: 45.5 (#166), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | — |
| LMArena French | 1352 | — |
| LMArena German | 1341 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1346 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command A: 69.3 (#172), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command A: 40.6 (#147), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command A: 47.8 (#204), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1338 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Qwen Turbo?
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 50× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command A's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 256K.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen Turbo share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.