Command R+ · MMLU · EM · % ↗
Cohere / MODEL EVIDENCE
Command R+
21 benchmarks · 24 observations · 19 sources · released 2024-08-30
Scores at a glance
21 benchmarks · large dot: Command R+; small dots: closest models where reported
Command R+ · SimpleBench · Score (AVG@5) · % ↗
Command R+ · LMCA · Score · % ↗
Command R+ · DTBench · Accuracy · % ↗
Command R+ · LiveBench · Global average · % ↗
Command R+ · General ECI · 26 October 2026 fit ↗
Command R+ · LegalBench · Accuracy ↗
Command R+ · MedQA · Accuracy ↗
Command R+ · GPQA Diamond · Accuracy ↗
Command R+ · MMLU Pro · Accuracy ↗
Command R+ · LiveCodeBench · Accuracy ↗
command-r-plus · Aider coding benchmarks · Refactoring · percent correct ↗
Command R+ · NoCha (Novel Challenge) · approximately 128k · matched-length comparison ↗
Command-R+ · AgentHarm & AgentDojo · AgentDojo targeted attack success · agent comparison ↗
1 more reported result
25.44% · Command-R+ · AgentHarm & AgentDojo · AgentDojo benign utility · agent comparison · AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents ↗
Command-R+ · HumanEval+ · Pass@1 · EvalPlus · official result data ↗
Command-R+ · MBPP+ · Pass@1 · EvalPlus · official result data ↗
Command-R+ · HumanEval · Pass@1 · EvalPlus · official result data ↗
Command-R-Plus · WildBench · WB-Score · reported comparison ↗
Command-R+ · ChemBench · Overall accuracy · published model comparison ↗
1 more reported result
42% · Command-R+ · ChemBench · Human-evaluation subset · accuracy · published model comparison · Are large language models superhuman chemists? ↗
Command R+ · MixEval & MixEval-Hard · accuracy · original comparison ↗
1 more reported result
81.5% · Command R+ · MixEval & MixEval-Hard · accuracy · original comparison · MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures ↗
Command R+ · WildHallucinations · WildFActScore · all entities · original evaluation ↗
Closest models by score
Similar positions on shared benchmark leaderboards. Smaller gaps are closer.
5 of 5 shared benchmark comparisons
5 of 5 shared benchmark comparisons
3 of 5 shared benchmark comparisons
How similarity is measured
Mean absolute gap in percentile positions on shared benchmark settings; lower is closer. At least 60% overlap is required, with a minimum of three when available. Independent evaluations are used when there are at least three; otherwise published report comparisons are used. Repeated model observations within one setting are averaged before ranking. Writing-style traits and composite indices are excluded. This describes similarity, not an overall quality ranking.
Sources
Every plotted observation links to its evaluation. Reported configurations, benchmark versions and task subsets can differ; similarity describes shared scores, not training lift.
- Aider refactoring benchmark ↗
- WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild — published result table ↗
All 9 authors
Lin, Bill Yuchen, Deng, Yuntian, Chandu, Khyathi, Brahman, Faeze, Ravichander, Abhilasha, Pyatkin, Valentina, Dziri, Nouha, Bras, Ronan Le, Choi, Yejin
- MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures — published result table ↗
All 8 authors
Jinjie Ni, Fuzhao Xue, Xiang Yue, Yuntian Deng, Mahir Shah, Kabir Jain, Graham Neubig, Yang You
- AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents — published result table ↗
- One Thousand and One Pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models — published result table ↗
- WildHallucinations: Evaluating Long-form Factuality in LLMs with Real-World Entity Queries — published result table ↗
All 11 authors
Wenting Zhao, Tanya Goyal, Yu Ying Chiu, Liwei Jiang, Benjamin Newman, Abhilasha Ravichander, Khyathi Chandu, Ronan Le Bras, Claire Cardie, Yuntian Deng, Yejin Choi
- Are large language models superhuman chemists? — published result table ↗
All 35 authors
Adrian Mirza, Nawaf Alampara, Sreekanth Kunchapu, Martiño Ríos-García, Benedict Emoekabu, Aswanth Krishnan, Tanya Gupta, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Macjonathan Okereke, Anagha Aneesh, Amir Mohammad Elahi, Mehrdad Asgari, Juliane Eberhardt, Hani M. Elbeheiry, María Victoria Gil, Maximilian Greiner, Caroline T. Holick, Christina Glaubitz, Tim Hoffmann, Abdelrahman Ibrahim, Lea C. Klepsch, Yannik Köster, Fabian Alexander Kreth, Jakob Meyer, Santiago Miret, Jan Matthias Peschel, Michael Ringleb, Nicole Roesner, Johanna Schreiber, Ulrich S. Schubert, Leanne M. Stafast, Dinga Wonanke, Michael Pieler, Philippe Schwaller, Kevin Maik Jablonka
- DTBench — Conceptual Reasoning Index ↗
- LMCA — Conceptual Reasoning Index ↗
- Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) ↗
- SimpleBench ↗
- AI benchmarks & capabilities ↗
- Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation — published result table ↗
- LiveBench — model evaluation leaderboard ↗
- GPQA Diamond — evaluation methodology and results ↗
- LiveCodeBench — evaluation methodology and results ↗
- LegalBench — evaluation methodology and results ↗
- MedQA — evaluation methodology and results ↗
- MMLU Pro — evaluation methodology and results ↗
Names used in source tables
Command R+ · Command-R+ · Command-R-Plus · command-r-plus