Model A

Google

64.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #39

90% interval 54.1–75.2

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max

Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

71.6/100

Supported · Public rank #16

90% interval 64.6–78.6

Decision reading

Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public score estimate, 71.6 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

9 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

14 Gemini 3.5 Flash only

9 Shared

26 Qwen3.7 Max only

Shared results: 9
Gemini 3.5 Flash only: 14
Qwen3.7 Max only: 26
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

4 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.2
Qwen3.7 Max: 69.7
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1
Qwen3.7 Max: 77.9
Weighted basis: 1 vs 4 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 74.7
Qwen3.7 Max: 90.4
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2
Qwen3.7 Max: 64.2
Weighted basis: 1 vs 4 rows
Reading: Directional only

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 32.9
Qwen3.7 Max: 97.1
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: Not measured
Qwen3.7 Max: 87.0
Weighted basis: 0 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 83.8
Qwen3.7 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 2 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: Not measured
Qwen3.7 Max: 84.4
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen3.7 Max
Category	Gemini 3.5 Flash	Qwen3.7 Max	Weighted basis	Reading
Agentic	77.2	69.7	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Coding	55.1	77.9	Directional only1 vs 4 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	74.7	90.4	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Knowledge	40.2	64.2	Directional only1 vs 4 rows	Directional only
Math	32.9	97.1	Not comparable2 vs 1 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	87.0	Not comparable0 vs 1 rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	83.8	Not measured	Not comparable2 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not measured	84.4	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

MRCRv2
Reasoning
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 77.3%Qwen3.7 Max: 90.4%Normalized gap 13.1Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.7 Max source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 76.2%Qwen3.7 Max: 69.7%Normalized gap 6.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.7 Max source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1%Qwen3.7 Max: 60.6%Normalized gap 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.7 Max source
HLE
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%Qwen3.7 Max: 41.4%Normalized gap 1.2Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.7 Max source

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash: $0.006; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash: $0.102; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash: $0.15; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashQwen3.7 Max

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.7 Max

API model ID

Gemini 3.5 Flash

gemini-3.5-flash

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.7 Max

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.7 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Max

Proprietary

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Max

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

Qwen3.7 Max

2026-05-16

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public score estimate, 71.6 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence49 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max69.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max76.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared source
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
Qwen3.7 Max64.27%
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared source
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
Qwen3.7 Max18.7%
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
QwenClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max64.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max65.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max47.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max53.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max69.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max60.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
EEBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max78.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max47.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max53.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max91.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max90.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
MRCR 1M
Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max13.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max92.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max41.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max92.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max95%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max73.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max97.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max90.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max44.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max87%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max59.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max86.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max89.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max86.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Max—
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max94.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
Qwen3.7 Max79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public score estimate, 71.6 versus 64.67, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 18, 2026

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max