Qwen Max vs Vision Small vs Command R+
Vision Small comes out ahead, 61 to 25 and 24 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Max
24/100- ECI—
- Price$1.60 / $6.40
- Context33K
- Our pick
VisparkVision Small
61/100- ECI—
- Price$1.05 / $3.16
- Context1M
CohereCommand R+
25/100- ECI—
- Price$2.50 / $10.00
- Context128K
Vision Small is our pick
Vision Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Command R+ (25) and Qwen Max (24). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceVision SmallVision Small $1.58 · Qwen Max $2.80 · Command R+ $4.38 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextVision SmallVision Small 1,000,000 · Command R+ 128,000 · Qwen Max 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsVision SmallQwen Max: Text · Vision Small: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Command R+: Text
- Self-hostingCommand R+Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Max | Vision Small | Command R+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 27 | 39 | 19 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 100 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 24/100 | 61/100 | 25/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen MaxAlibaba (Qwen) | Vision SmallVispark | Command R+Cohere |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.60 | $1.05 (best) | $2.50 |
| Output | $6.40 | $3.16 (best) | $10.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.80 | $1.58 (best) | $4.38 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Vispark API | Official Cohere API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) | 4,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen-max | vispark/vision-small | command-r-plus-08-2024 |
| API providers | 8 (best) | 1 | 8 (best) |
| Released | Apr 3, 2024 | May 15, 2024 | Aug 30, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — | Jun 1, 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen Max$28.80
- Vision Small$16.82
- Command R+$45.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Max, Vision Small or Command R+?
Vision Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Command R+ (25) and Qwen Max (24). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen Max, Vision Small or Command R+?
Vision Small is cheaper at $1.05 input / $3.16 output per million tokens (official Vispark API price). Qwen Max costs $1.60 input / $6.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Command R+ costs $2.50 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Cohere API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.58 per million tokens for Vision Small versus $2.80 for Qwen Max (1.8× as much) and $4.38 for Command R+ (2.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen Max has not been scored yet, Vision Small has not been scored yet and Command R+ has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen Max, Vision Small and Command R+ yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Vision Small has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 128,000 for Command R+ and 32,768 for Qwen Max. Maximum output per response: Qwen Max up to 8,192, Vision Small up to 65,536, Command R+ up to 4,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Max accepts text; Vision Small accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Command R+ accepts text. Vision Small handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Command R+ publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Max and Vision Small is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Command R+ is the newest, released Aug 30, 2024. Vision Small came out May 15, 2024; Qwen Max came out Apr 3, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen Max Apr 2024, Command R+ Jun 1, 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
