Multimodal
Like-for-like- Command A+
- 59.3
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 79.6
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.5 397B leads
Command A+ vs Qwen3.5 397B
Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.5 397B has the higher public score estimate, 57.46 versus 47.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Command A+ only
2 Shared
36 Qwen3.5 397B only
- Shared results
- 2
- Command A+ only
- 2
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 36
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 56.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 66.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 63.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 56.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 90.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 84.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 92.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Command A+ | Qwen3.5 397B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 59.3 | 79.6 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Agentic | Not measured | 56.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 66.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 63.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 56.6 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 90.6 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 84.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 92.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
CharXiv
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.0075
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.155
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.65
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCommand A+Qwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Command A+
128K
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Command A+
Not published
Qwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Command A+
Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Command A+
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
Command A+
Open Weight
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
Command A+
2026-05-20
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.5 397B has the higher public score estimate, 57.46 versus 47.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.155 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.65 vs $0.168.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 128K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence40 rows
Agentic
τ²-bench results
Command A+85%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B62%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B56.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B46.76%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B14.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU
Command A+75.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Command A+63%SourceQwen3.5 397B79%SourceQwen3.5 397B leads this result
CharXiv
Command A+52.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B leads this result
MathVision
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
Command A+—Qwen3.5 397B92.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Command A+ or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the higher public score estimate, 57.46 versus 47.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Command A+ or Qwen3.5 397B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Command A+ or Qwen3.5 397B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Command A+ or Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0075 on Command A+ and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.155 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.65 and $0.168. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Command A+ or Qwen3.5 397B?
Both models list the same context window, 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 18, 2026
Watch Command A+ vs Qwen3.5 397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.