Model comparison
Command R+ vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 54.4 to 9.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 5% for Command R+ and 46.2% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R+ has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1674 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| SciCode | — | 53.2% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1496 |
| DTBench | 54.9% | 92% |
| LMCA | 5% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 156.41 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 40% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 100% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1507 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Command R+: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1314 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | 1492 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1479 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1489 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 32.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ or Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Qwen3.8 Max share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.