Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated September 30, 2026. Rank says Gemini 4 Argon is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public score estimate, 64.59 versus 55.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Gemini 4 Argon

Google

64.59/100

Estimated · Public rank #32

90% interval 53.1–76.1

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

55.71/100

Supported · Public rank #56

90% interval 45.3–66.1

Shared results: 1
Gemini 4 Argon only: 16
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 51
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

Estimated: Gemini 4 Argon · Supported: Qwen3.7 PlusHow the comparison works

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
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 4 Argon is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limited
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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

68.4Gemini 4 Argon43.2Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 66.4
Gemini 4 Argon:69.2%
Qwen3.7 Plus:2.8%
Gemini 4 Argon source Qwen3.7 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only

Gemini 4 Argon: 63.7; Estimated · #14/119
Qwen3.7 Plus: 35.4; Supported · #68/119
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Gemini 4 Argon: 68.4; Supported · #8/144
Qwen3.7 Plus: 43.2; Estimated · #56/144
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Gemini 4 Argon: 72.9; Supported · #11/170
Qwen3.7 Plus: 52.5; Estimated · #56/170
Basis: BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemini 4 Argon: 77.1; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.2; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Gemini 4 Argon: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 73.5; #18/49
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemini 4 Argon: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.9; #3/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Gemini 4 Argon: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 89.2; #18/124
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 4 Argon: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.2; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 4 Argon and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	Gemini 4 Argon	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	63.7Estimated · #14/119	35.4Supported · #68/119	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 11 public rows	Directional only
Coding	68.4Supported · #8/144	43.2Estimated · #56/144	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	72.9Supported · #11/170	52.5Estimated · #56/170	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	77.1Unranked · 3 rankable rows	75.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	Not ranked	73.5#18/49	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	78.9#3/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	89.2#18/124	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	78.2Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 4 Argon: $0.007; Fit state unavailable
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

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

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 4 Argon: $0.13; Fit state unavailable
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

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

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Gemini 4 Argon: $0.16; Fit state unavailable
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

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

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

SpecificationGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.7 Plus

Context window

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

Gemini 4 Argon

Not sourced

Google Gemini 4 Argon announcement

Qwen3.7 Plus

API model ID

Gemini 4 Argon

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Gemini 4 Argon

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini 4 Argon announcement

Qwen3.7 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Gemini 4 Argon

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 4 Argon

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 4 Argon

Limited Access · Fairwind Program

Google Gemini 4 Argon announcement

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 4 Argon

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 4 Argon

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

Gemini 4 Argon

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Gemini 4 Argon

2026-09-30

Qwen3.7 Plus

2026-06-03

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: Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public score estimate, 64.59 versus 55.71, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: A complete documented context comparison is not available.

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

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 4 Argon has the higher public score estimate, 64.59 versus 55.71, 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 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for coding on the public lane, 68.4 to 43.2. Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemini 4 Argon scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.7 to 35.4. Gemini 4 Argon is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

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 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence68 rows

Agentic

AutomationBench
Gemini 4 Argon51.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 4 Argon65.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Gemini 4 Argon57.40%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 4 Argon39.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 4 Argon69.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
Gemini 4 Argon leads this result
CWE-bench v1
Gemini 4 Argon68.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (6x verifier timeout)
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

DeepSWE
Gemini 4 Argon77.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Gemini 4 Argon55.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 4 Argon91.90%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Gemini 4 Argon45.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

Graphwalks BFS 128K
Gemini 4 Argon99.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Gemini 4 Argon84.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

Chartography (no tools)
Gemini 4 Argon71.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 4 Argon91.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

LABBench2
Gemini 4 Argon88.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Gemini 4 Argon0.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
IFEval
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Gemini 4 Argon—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

68 public results · 1 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.7 Plus

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 30, 2026

Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Reasoning

Multimodal

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

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

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 4 Argon or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 4 Argon vs Qwen3.7 Plus