Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command R (08-2024) vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 1.5x less per output token than Command R (08-2024) ($0.40 vs $0.60 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 25 benchmarks have a result for both.

Command R (08-2024)Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
2
Qwen2.5 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
26.5
Output $/M
$0.40
23
vs boards won of 25 shared

Command R (08-2024) or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Command R (08-2024) for a larger context window (128K against 33K tokens) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Shared results
25
Command R (08-2024) only
0
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct only
28
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Command R (08-2024) not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 16.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: coding: Command R (08-2024) 1187 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 1292, 17.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Command R (08-2024) $0.60 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.40 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
Command R (08-2024) takes 128K tokens, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 33K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryCommand R (08-2024)BarsQwen2.5 72B InstructTies
Coding02
Reasoning03
Math02
Knowledge04
General212
All shared boards223
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured27.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WeirdMLNot measured16.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding11871292Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: software and IT11971292Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured7.7Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured129.0Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured34.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
METR time horizonsNot measured35.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured16.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured5.7%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured49.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured49.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BIG-Bench HardNot measured79.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts11861271Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: expert11731245Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English11941279Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured14.0Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured14.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured8.1%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
MATH level 5Not measured63.2%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math11881283Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: mathematical work11981290Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured72.0%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured85.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured94.5%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science12521275Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12381258Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: legal and government12681288Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: business and finance12151253Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index212
General benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
IFBenchNot measured36.9%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
DTBenchNot measured62.9%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured13.4%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
HellaSwagNot measured84.8%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured82.3%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
PIQANot measured82.6%Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text12291269Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: instruction following11971254Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: creative writing12341221Command R (08-2024)
LMArena Text: English12381283Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: non-English12161252Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: Chinese12271273Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: German12161234Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: Japanese11661180Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: Korean11621188Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1280Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1255Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian12271264Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: multi-turn12131272Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: longer queries12301281Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: writing and language12411247Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12231211Command R (08-2024)
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Command R (08-2024)$0.0004Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.0006Fits in one request

Command R (08-2024) costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Command R (08-2024)$0.0093Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.019Exceeds the context window

Command R (08-2024) costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command R (08-2024)$0.036Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.076Exceeds the context window

Command R (08-2024) costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Command R (08-2024) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
SpecificationCohere Command R (08-2024)Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
MakerCohereQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 30, 2024September 19, 2024
Context window128K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.36
Output $/Mtok$0.60$0.40
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Command R (08-2024) better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command R (08-2024) for a larger context window (128K against 33K tokens) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Command R (08-2024) or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Command R (08-2024) costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $0.36 and $0.40. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Command R (08-2024) or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Command R (08-2024), with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Command R (08-2024) vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct comparison based on?

25 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Command R (08-2024)'s coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next