Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
67.22/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.6 Flash unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Gemini 3.6 Flash; 54 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
15
Gemini 3.6 Flash only
4
Qwen3.7 Plus only
54
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Gemini 3.6 Flash makes more sense if agentic is the priority; Qwen3.7 Plus is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 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

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

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 Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGemini 3.6 FlashΔQwen3.7 Plus
AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash83.0Margin← 11.3Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingGemini 3.6 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 3.6 FlashB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83%B 73.3%
    Winner: Gemini 3.6 FlashΔ 9.7
    OSWorld-Verified: Gemini 3.6 Flash scored 83%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. Gemini 3.6 Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 3.6 Flash$1.5 input / $7.5 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 3.6 FlashNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 3.6 FlashNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 3.6 Flash1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGemini 3.6 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83%73.3%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 1421936Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 38.7%20.8%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 46.1%21.8%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA BriefcaseSource 961—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 24.5%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 77.5%—Not comparable
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
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
deepSweSource 49%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 69.2%55.9%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-SciCodeSource 52.7%45.5%Gemini 3.6 Flash 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
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 69.7%65.0%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
CritPtSource 10.6%9.1%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 50.1%39.0%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.8%90.0%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 38.3%33.4%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 23.5%2.4%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 50.2%22.2%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 53.5%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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
Math
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 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
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 83.2%80.5%Gemini 3.6 Flash leads
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
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.7 Plus are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 3.6 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 83 versus 71.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 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.