Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Command R (08-2024) vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Command R (08-2024) costs 1.9x less per output token than Qwen3.6 Flash ($0.60 vs $1.125 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Command R (08-2024)Cohere
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
Qwen3.6 FlashQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.125
vs $0.60 vs $1.125 per 1M output tokens. Command R (08-2024) is 1.9x cheaper.

Command R (08-2024) or Qwen3.6 Flash: which to pick

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

Pick Command R (08-2024) for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.125 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R (08-2024) has results on LMArena Text: coding, LMArena Text: software and IT and LMArena Text: hard prompts; Qwen3.6 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead.

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, Qwen3.6 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Command R (08-2024) $0.60 against Qwen3.6 Flash $1.125 per million output tokens, 1.9x apart.
Context window
Command R (08-2024) takes 128K tokens, Qwen3.6 Flash 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
ALE-BenchNot measured326.4Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMArena Text: coding1187Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1197Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured142.9Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured83.3%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
SimpleBenchNot measured35.2%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured12.0%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured18.0%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1186Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: expert1173Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1194Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured84.4%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured22.5%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMArena Text: math1188Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1198Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured15.9%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMArena Text: science1252Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1238Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1268Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1215Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards measured
General benchmarks for Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash
BenchmarkCommand R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 FlashLeader
DTBenchNot measured77.1%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMCANot measured31.0%Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured
LMArena Text1229Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1197Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1234Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: English1238Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: non-English1216Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1227Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: German1216Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1166Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: Korean1162Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: Russian1227Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1213Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1230Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1241Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1223Not measuredOnly Command R (08-2024) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 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
Qwen3.6 Flash$0.0008Fits 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
Qwen3.6 Flash$0.013Fits in one request

Command R (08-2024) costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Command R (08-2024)$0.036Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.6 Flash$0.049Fits in one request

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 Qwen3.6 Flash
SpecificationCohere Command R (08-2024)Qwen3.6 Flash
MakerCohereQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 30, 2024April 27, 2026
Context window128K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.1875
Output $/Mtok$0.60$1.125
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 Qwen3.6 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command R (08-2024) for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.125 per million).

Which is cheaper, Command R (08-2024) or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Command R (08-2024) costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.1875 and $1.125. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Command R (08-2024) or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash, with 1M tokens against 128K.

Has any benchmark tested both Command R (08-2024) and Qwen3.6 Flash?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R (08-2024) has results on LMArena Text: coding, LMArena Text: software and IT and LMArena Text: hard prompts; Qwen3.6 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next