Command A vs Qwen 3.5 397B
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Qwen 3.5 397B by Qwen wins on 15 of 17 benchmarks against Command A by Cohere, which leads on 2. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from our benchmark data.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
General Intelligence: In general intelligence, Qwen 3.5 397B scores 1350 on Chatbot Arena ELO compared to Command A's 1250, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 81.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to Command A's 68.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 19.1 on AA Intelligence Index compared to Command A's 13.9.
Coding: In coding, Qwen 3.5 397B scores 88.0% on HumanEval+ compared to Command A's 78.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 76.4% on SWE-bench Verified compared to Command A's 32.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 54.0% on LiveCodeBench compared to Command A's 35.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 48.2 on AA Coding Index compared to Command A's 27.8.
Math: In math, Qwen 3.5 397B scores 87.0% on MATH compared to Command A's 72.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 95.0% on GSM8K compared to Command A's 88.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, Qwen 3.5 397B scores 62.0% on GPQA Diamond compared to Command A's 45.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 45.0% on ARC-AGI compared to Command A's 15.0%, while Qwen 3.5 397B scores 10.6 on AA Agentic Index compared to Command A's 3.6.
Context: In context, Qwen 3.5 397B scores 262K on Context Length compared to Command A's 256K.
Pricing Comparison
Command A costs $2.5/1M input tokens and $10.0/1M output tokens, while Qwen 3.5 397B costs $0.55/1M input and $3.5/1M output. Qwen 3.5 397B is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
Command A generates output at 70 tok/s compared to Qwen 3.5 397B's 45 tok/s, and the time to first token is 400 ms for Command A versus 600 ms for Qwen 3.5 397B. Command A delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing speed, Command A has the edge. For those who value coding and general intelligence and math and affordability, Qwen 3.5 397B is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
Command A vs Qwen 3.5 397B — FAQ
Which is better, Command A or Qwen 3.5 397B?
Qwen 3.5 397B wins on more benchmarks overall (15 vs 2). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Command A compare to Qwen 3.5 397B for coding?
Qwen 3.5 397B is better for coding, scoring 76.4% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 32.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is Command A cheaper than Qwen 3.5 397B?
Yes, Qwen 3.5 397B is cheaper. Command A costs $2.5/1M input and $10.0/1M output tokens. Qwen 3.5 397B costs $0.55/1M input and $3.5/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, Command A or Qwen 3.5 397B?
Command A is faster, generating output at 70 tok/s compared to 45 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Command A vs Qwen 3.5 397B comparison cover?
This comparison covers 17 benchmarks including Chatbot Arena ELO, MMLU-Pro, HumanEval+, MATH, GPQA Diamond, SWE-bench Verified, Output Speed, LiveCodeBench, and more. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.