Model Comparison

Command R+ vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 1.1x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Command R+ outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is better at 1 benchmark (MMLU).

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs less

For input processing, Command R+ ($0.25/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, Command R+ ($1.00/1M tokens) is 1.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.99/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Command R+ is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Command R+

Input tokens$0.25

Output tokens$1.00

Best providerCohere

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input tokens$0.20

Output tokens$0.99

Best providerNovita

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

73.0B diff

Command R+ has 73.0B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking, making it 235.5% larger.

Command R+

104.0Bparameters

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

31.0Bparameters

104.0B

Command R+

31.0B

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking accepts 131,072 input tokens compared to Command R+'s 128,000 tokens. Command R+ can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is limited to 32,768 tokens.

Command R+

Input128,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input131,072 tokens

Output32,768 tokens

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas Command R+ does not.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Command R+

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Command R+ is licensed under CC BY-NC, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Command R+

CC BY-NC

Open weights

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Command R+ was released on 2024-08-30, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 13 months newer than Command R+.

Command R+

Aug 30, 2024

1.7 years ago

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

8 months ago

1.1yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Command R+ is available from Cohere, Bedrock. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is available from Novita, DeepInfra.

Command R+

Cohere

Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M

AWS Bedrock

Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $15.00/1M

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.29/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.99/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Command R+

View details

Cohere

No standout differentiators in the data we have for this pair.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Larger context window (131,072 tokens)

Supports multimodal inputs

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Higher MMLU score (87.6% vs 75.7%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Command R+	Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about Command R+ vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.

Which is better, Command R+ or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Command R+ is made by Cohere and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Command R+ compare to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking in benchmarks?

Command R+ scores HellaSwag: 88.6%, Winogrande: 85.4%, MMLU: 75.7%, ARC-C: 71.0%, GSM8k: 70.7%. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 95.0%, ScreenSpot: 94.7%, MMLU-Redux: 90.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 88.9%, MMLU: 87.6%.

Is Command R+ cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 1.3x cheaper for input tokens. Command R+ costs $0.25/M input and $1.00/M output via cohere. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs $0.20/M input and $0.99/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Command R+ and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Command R+ supports 128K tokens and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Command R+ and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Key differences include context window (128K vs 131K), input pricing ($0.25 vs $0.20/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (CC BY-NC vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Command R+ and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Command R+ is developed by Cohere and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.