Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.0 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R+'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command R+ leads 35.9 to 17.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 54.9% for Command R+ and 47.7% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.0 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 4K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Command R+: 28.6 (#304), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 46.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Command R+: 8.9 (#341), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 54.9% | 47.7% |
| LMCA | 5% | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.28 | 118.44 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Command R+ leads
Command R+: 26.6 (#239), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1188 | — |
Knowledge Command R+ leads
Command R+: 35.9 (#165), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 69.4% | 72.9% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R+: 38.8 (#222), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | — |
| LMArena French | 1208 | — |
| LMArena German | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Command R+: 60.2 (#249), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command R+: 37.3 (#214), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Command R+: 43.7 (#223), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.0 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R+'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.