Model comparison
Command A+ vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Command A+ #135 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Command A+ and Qwen3.7 Plus share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Command A+; 51 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Command A+ only
- 3
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 51
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Command A+ only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 47.51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 81.5 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 52.7% to 85.9%.
Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Command A+.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Command A+ | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Command A+59.3 | Margin→ 22.2 | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Agentic | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Reasoning | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Math | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Inst. Following | Command A+Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 52.7%B 85.9%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 33.2CharXiv: Command A+ scored 52.7%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 63%B 79%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 16MMMU-Pro: Command A+ scored 63%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Command A+ | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Command A+$2.5 input / $10 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Command A+272 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Command A+0.25 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Command A+128K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 80.7% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 9.2% | 20.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 10.7% | 21.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 714 | 936 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 25% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 45.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 27.9% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 37.8% | 45.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.5% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 76.1% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.4% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -4.0% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 8.9% | 22.2% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 14.1% | 25.5% | Command A+ leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 38.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Command A+ | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | 63% | 79% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| CharXivSource | 52.7% | 85.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 63.2% | 80.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Command A+ or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 47.51. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 52.7% and 85.9%.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Command A+ or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 59.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.