Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen Turbo
Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.0 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Command R leads 25.8 to 14.5.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for Command R.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Command R has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.0 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Command R: 28.8 (#301), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1170 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Command R: 13.3 (#329), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 21.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1164 | — |
| DTBench | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 33.3% | — |
| LMCA | 9.2% | — |
| LiveBench | 27.5% | — |
Math Command R leads
Command R: 25.8 (#244), Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 6.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
Knowledge Command R leads
Command R: 30.5 (#219), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 41.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | — |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R: 35.9 (#240), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | — |
| LMArena French | 1161 | — |
| LMArena German | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1162 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1150 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command R: 58.3 (#256), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command R: 36.3 (#226), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command R: 38.4 (#248), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen Turbo?
Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.0 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 3.0× 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 Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Command R lists at $0.15 and $0.60.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen Turbo share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.