Model comparison
Command R vs Qwen3-1.7B
Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Command R leads 28.0 to 16.3.
Side by side
| Command R | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Command R: 29.3 (#306), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 17.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1169 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 45.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3-1.7B leads
Command R: 13.8 (#331), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| 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: 28.0 (#246), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 19.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
Knowledge Command R leads
Command R: 31.0 (#221), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1138 | — |
| MMLU | 65.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Command R: 35.7 (#245), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1182 | — |
| LMArena French | 1162 | — |
| LMArena German | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1163 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1151 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Command R: 58.1 (#261), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 55.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1167 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Command R: 36.3 (#231), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1198 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Command R: 38.2 (#254), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Command R | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1187 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1170 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1163 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 16.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Command R and Qwen3-1.7B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.