Model comparison
Command A vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Command A scores higher in 1 category and QwQ-32B in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 40.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 12% for Command A and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Command A | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 35.9 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2025-03-13 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 256K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 24 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Command A: 26.8 (#317), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 12% | 20.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1331 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command A: 35.7 (#36), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 57.1% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Command A: 17.7 (#276), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1326 | 1326 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| DTBench | 61.3% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 10.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Command A: 33.5 (#172), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1300 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Command A: 36.5 (#157), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1295 | 1323 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Command A: 45.5 (#166), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1313 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1327 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1352 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1283 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1285 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1314 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1346 | 1353 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Command A: 69.3 (#172), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1309 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Command A: 40.6 (#147), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1334 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Command A: 47.8 (#204), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | Command A | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1331 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1319 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1145 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1338 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command A better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Command A or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 26.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Command A and QwQ-32B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command A has 24 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.