Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Exaone 4.0 32B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Exaone 4.0 32B
LG AI Research
40.44/100
Margin
26.8pts
winning →
67.22/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.7 Plus share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Exaone 4.0 32B; 57 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Exaone 4.0 32B only
1
Qwen3.7 Plus only
57
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 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 40.44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.

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 scores and score margins for Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryExaone 4.0 32BΔQwen3.7 Plus
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B81.8Margin← 21.7Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MathExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Exaone 4.0 32BB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 81.8%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.7
    MMLU-Pro: Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensExaone 4.0 32BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondExaone 4.0 32BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenExaone 4.0 32BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensExaone 4.0 32B128KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 4.1%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not 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
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-SciCodeSource 25.2%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
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 8.0%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.0%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProSource 81.8%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 6.0%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 62.8%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 4.9%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -62.3%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 10.4%22.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 81.0%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AIME 2025Source 85.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 33.5%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Exaone 4.0 32B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 40.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 81.8% and 88.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Exaone 4.0 32B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

LG AI Research Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.