Model comparison
Command A vs Qwen3-1.7B
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Command A leads 33.5 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 57.1% for Command A and 28.4% for Qwen3-1.7B.
Side by side
| Command A | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 26.2 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 24 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Command A: 26.8 (#317), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1331 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads
Command A: 35.7 (#36), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | 28.4% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Command A: 17.7 (#276), Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | — |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
Math Command A leads
Command A: 33.5 (#172), Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1300 | — |
Knowledge Command A leads
Command A: 36.5 (#157), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command A: 45.5 (#166), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command A: 40.6 (#147), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command A: 47.8 (#204), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1338 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Command A is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3-1.7B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.