Noometry

Model comparison

Command A vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Command A Cohere

36.5

Rank #215 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 Plus in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 32.8 to 18.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 10.3% for Command A and 36.4% for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command A.
  • Qwen3.5 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.
  • Command A has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command AQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.542.9
Released2025-03-132026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window256K1M
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$2.40
Results tracked2415

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command A: 27.2 (#322), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
Aider Polyglot12%—
LMArena Coding1330—
ALE-Bench—621.92

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command A: 35.9 (#40), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard57.1%—
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 18.3 (#283), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
DTBench61.3%80.5%
LMCA10.3%36.4%
Kagi LLM Benchmark28.8%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1326—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.78

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 36.2 (#171), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1300—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 37.1 (#159), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
Vectara Hallucination Rate9.3%10.7%
GPQA Diamond—84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
LMArena Expert1295—

Multilingual Not comparable

Command A: 45.3 (#170), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
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), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1309—

Long Context Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Command A: 40.6 (#151), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1334—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command A: 47.6 (#208), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkCommand AQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1331—
LMArena Creative Writing1319—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1145—
LMArena Multi-Turn1339—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command A better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 36.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Command A or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Command A lists at $2.50 and $10.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Command A and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper