Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3 14B

Command A and Qwen3 14B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (36.5 vs 35.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 14B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 14B leads 37.3 to 27.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 28.8% for Command A and 49.1% for Qwen3 14B.
  • Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Command A accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Command AQwen3 14B
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.535.5
Released2025-03-132025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K131K
Max output8K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$10$1.40
Results tracked2412

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
Aider Polyglot12%—
SciCode—31.6%
LMArena Coding1330—

Agentic & Tool Use Command A leads

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%41%

Reasoning Too close to call

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%49.1%
DTBench61.3%64%
LMCA10.3%18.2%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—4%
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.23

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.4%
LMArena Math1300—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%5.4%
GPQA Diamond—63.8%
LMArena Expert1295—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1313—
LMArena Chinese1327—
LMArena French1351—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Japanese1285—
LMArena Korean1285—
LMArena Russian1314—
LMArena Spanish1347—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command A: 69.1 (#177), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Command A leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3 14B
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1339—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3 14B?

Command A and Qwen3 14B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (36.5 vs 35.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Is Command A or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 27.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Command A does, with 256K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3 14B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper