Model comparison
Command A vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Max in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 41.2 to 26.8.
- Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command A | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 40.1 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 24 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command A: 26.8 (#317), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1331 | 1359 |
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.7 (#36), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command A: 17.7 (#276), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1360 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Too close to call
Command A: 33.5 (#172), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge Command A leads
Command A: 36.5 (#157), Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command A: 45.5 (#166), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1352 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1283 | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1346 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command A: 69.3 (#172), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Too close to call
Command A: 40.6 (#147), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Command A: 47.8 (#204), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1338 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command A or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 26.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen2.5-Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.