Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026

Command A vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Name: Command A vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Command A (Cohere) and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. On preference Elo, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is ahead by 81 points (1,425 vs 1,344; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B resolves 65.2% versus 42.6% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Command A streams faster (118 tok/s) while Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the cheaper output token ($0.72/1M). Command A has the larger context window (256k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Cohere

Command A

Cohere enterprise RAG and tool-use model.

Elo 1,344$10/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Alibaba dedicated open-weight code generation model with near-frontier SWE-bench Verified coding capability.

Elo 1,425$0.72/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Command A (3)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (7)

Command A: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 7W (70%)

← Command AQwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,344vs1,425

Coding Elo

—vs1,495

SWE-bench

42.6%vs65.2%

LiveBench

56.2%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

66%vs74%

Command A: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 5W

Command A (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

118 tok/svs110 tok/s

Time to first token

175 msvs180 ms

Command A: 2WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 0W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$10/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$2.5/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

256kvs131k

Command A: 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageQwen 2.5 Coder 32B 4/6

Preference Elo

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

81 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Command A

8 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

$9.28/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,344

EloHigh is better

1,425+6%

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,495

LiveBench

High is better

56.2%

LiveBenchHigh is better

64.8%+15%

SWE-bench

High is better

42.6%

SWE-benchHigh is better

65.2%+53%

GPQA

High is better

66%

GPQAHigh is better

74%+12%

TTFT

Low is better

+3%175 ms

TTFTLow is better

180 ms

Speed

High is better

+7%118 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

110 tok/s

In $

Low is better

$2.5/1M

In $Low is better

$0.18/1M+1289%

Out $

Low is better

$10/1M

Out $Low is better

$0.72/1M+1289%

Context

High is better

+95%256k

ContextHigh is better

131k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 93% with Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Command A$237.50 / mo

In: $87.50Out: $150.00

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B$17.10 / mo

In: $6.30Out: $10.80

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is estimated to save $220.40/month ($2,645/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Command A:Pick Command A when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UICommand A

Lower TTFT (175 ms).

Long-document RAGCommand A

Larger window (256k).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Command A	Lower TTFT (175 ms).
Long-document RAG	Command A	Larger window (256k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchMar 13, 2025

Command A: Cohere’s enterprise RAG and tool-use row

Mar 2025. RAG and tools, not a frontier Elo play. Listed so “command a benchmark” has a sourced page.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/command-a-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Cohere

Command A

Elo 1,344

LiveBench56.2%

SWE-bench42.6%

Speed118 tok/s

Output cost$10/1M

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Elo 1,425

LiveBench64.8%

SWE-bench65.2%

Speed110 tok/s

Output cost$0.72/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Command A or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,425). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Command A or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B leads SWE-bench at 65.2% vs 42.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $10/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Command A or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Command A has the lower time-to-first-token (175 ms vs 180 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Command A accepts 256k tokens versus 131k.
Can I self-host either model?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Command A and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Command A matchups →|All Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B matchups →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Plus (previous qwen)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3 235B (next qwen)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Qwen 3 Max vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Command A vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Command A (3)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (7)

Command A: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 7W (70%)

← Command AQwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,344vs1,425

Coding Elo

—vs1,495

SWE-bench

42.6%vs65.2%

LiveBench

56.2%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

66%vs74%

Command A: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 5W

Command A (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

118 tok/svs110 tok/s

Time to first token

175 msvs180 ms

Command A: 2WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 0W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$10/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$2.5/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

256kvs131k

Command A: 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UICommand A

Lower TTFT (175 ms).

Long-document RAGCommand A

Larger window (256k).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Command A	Lower TTFT (175 ms).
Long-document RAG	Command A	Larger window (256k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Command A or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,425). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Command A or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B leads SWE-bench at 65.2% vs 42.6%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $10/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Command A or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Command A has the lower time-to-first-token (175 ms vs 180 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Command A accepts 256k tokens versus 131k.

Can I self-host either model?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Command A and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Command A

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Command A: Cohere’s enterprise RAG and tool-use row

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Command A

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Command A

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Command A: Cohere’s enterprise RAG and tool-use row

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Command A

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons