Model comparison

Command R7B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#22); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Command R7B Cohere

32.5

Unranked Sparse

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 45.4 to 26.1.
  • Command R7B is cheaper at $0.0375 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Command R7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Command R7B and Qwen3.8 Max specifications
Command R7BQwen3.8 Max
ProviderCohereAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.556.8
Released2024-12-022026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.0375$2
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$6
Results tracked139

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
LMArena Coding—1502

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads

Command R7B: 26.1, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard32.1%—
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1496
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41

Math Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%
LMArena Math—1499

Knowledge Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
LMArena Expert—1507

Multimodal Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English—1472
LMArena Chinese—1538
LMArena French—1503
LMArena German—1483
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461
LMArena Russian—1481
LMArena Spanish—1492

Instruction Following Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following—1479

Long Context Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query—1489

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Command R7B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCommand R7BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text—1483
LMArena Creative Writing—1479
LMArena Multi-Turn—1489

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R7B better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#22); Command R7B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Command R7B or Qwen3.8 Max?

Command R7B is cheaper. It lists at $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R7B and Qwen3.8 Max share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R7B has 1 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper