Qwen-MT Plus vs Command R7B vs Step 1 (32K)
Command R7B comes out ahead, 62 to 18 and 12 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Plus
12/100- ECI—
- Price$2.46 / $7.37
- Context16K
- Our pick
CohereCommand R7B
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.037 / $0.15
- Context128K
StepFunStep 1 (32K)
18/100- ECI—
- Price$2.05 / $9.59
- Context33K
Command R7B is our pick
Command R7B is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Qwen-MT Plus (12). It leads on price 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 priceCommand R7BCommand R7B $0.066 · Qwen-MT Plus $3.69 · Step 1 (32K) $3.94 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCommand R7BCommand R7B 128,000 · Step 1 (32K) 32,768 · Qwen-MT Plus 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen-MT Plus: Text · Command R7B: Text · Step 1 (32K): Text
- Self-hostingCommand R7BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen-MT Plus | Command R7B | Step 1 (32K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 23 | 100 | 22 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 12/100 | 62/100 | 18/100 |
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-MT PlusAlibaba (Qwen) | Command R7BCohere | Step 1 (32K)StepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.46 | $0.037 (best) | $2.05 |
| Output | $7.37 | $0.15 (best) | $9.59 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.41 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.69 | $0.066 (best) | $3.94 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Cohere API | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 16,384 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 4,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen-mt-plus | command-r7b-12-2024 | step-1-32k |
| API providers | 1 | 5 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jan 2025 | Dec 2, 2024 | Jan 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Jun 1, 2024 | Jun 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-MT Plus$39.34
- Command R7B$0.675
- Step 1 (32K)$39.68
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen-MT Plus, Command R7B or Step 1 (32K)?
Command R7B is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Qwen-MT Plus (12). It leads on price 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-MT Plus, Command R7B or Step 1 (32K)?
Command R7B is cheaper at $0.037 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Cohere API price). Qwen-MT Plus costs $2.46 input / $7.37 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Step 1 (32K) costs $2.05 input / $9.59 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.066 per million tokens for Command R7B versus $3.69 for Qwen-MT Plus (56× as much) and $3.94 for Step 1 (32K) (60× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen-MT Plus has not been scored yet, Command R7B has not been scored yet and Step 1 (32K) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen-MT Plus, Command R7B and Step 1 (32K) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-MT Plus does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command R7B has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Step 1 (32K) and 16,384 for Qwen-MT Plus. Maximum output per response: Qwen-MT Plus up to 8,192, Command R7B up to 4,000, Step 1 (32K) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen-MT Plus accepts text; Command R7B accepts text; Step 1 (32K) accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Command R7B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen-MT Plus and Step 1 (32K) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen-MT Plus is the newest, released Jan 2025. Step 1 (32K) came out Jan 1, 2025; Command R7B came out Dec 2, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen-MT Plus Apr 2024, Command R7B Jun 1, 2024, Step 1 (32K) Jun 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 Oct 4, 2026.
