Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Decision reading

Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 61.6 versus 52.4, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

4 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Gemma 4 31B

Google

52.4/100

Supported · Public rank #113

90% interval 29.1–75.7

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

61.6/100

Supported · Public rank #54

90% interval 50.6–72.6

Updated September 18, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

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.

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

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
Gemma 4 31B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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.

42.3Gemma 4 31B52.6Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign

Qwen3.7 Plus 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

What is actually comparable

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

4 Gemma 4 31B only

4 Shared

48 Qwen3.7 Plus only

Shared results: 4
Gemma 4 31B only: 4
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 48
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

5 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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

Gemma 4 31B: 45.4; Estimated · #86/154
Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.7; Supported · #133/154
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Gemma 4 31B: 42.3; Supported · #108/154
Qwen3.7 Plus: 52.6; Estimated · #48/154
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Gemma 4 31B: 45.7; Supported · #108/184
Qwen3.7 Plus: 56.2; Estimated · #49/184
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Gemma 4 31B: 58.5; #30/48
Qwen3.7 Plus: 72.4; #18/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only

Gemma 4 31B: 91.5; #12/124
Qwen3.7 Plus: 89.2; #18/124
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B: 68.9; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 74.0; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.2; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemma 4 31B: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.9; #3/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	Gemma 4 31B	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	45.4Estimated · #86/154	36.7Supported · #133/154	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 11 public rows	Directional only
Coding	42.3Supported · #108/154	52.6Estimated · #48/154	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	45.7Supported · #108/184	56.2Estimated · #49/184	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	58.5#30/48	72.4#18/48	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Instruction following	91.5#12/124	89.2#18/124	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	68.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows	74.0Unranked · 3 rankable rows	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
Multilingual	Not ranked	78.9#3/12	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) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

HLE
Knowledge
Gemma 4 31B: 26.5%Qwen3.7 Plus: 34.7%Normalized gap 8.2Gemma 4 31B source Qwen3.7 Plus source
GPQA
Knowledge
Gemma 4 31B: 84.3%Qwen3.7 Plus: 90.3%Normalized gap 6.0Gemma 4 31B source Qwen3.7 Plus source
MMLU-Pro
Knowledge
Gemma 4 31B: 85.2%Qwen3.7 Plus: 88.5%Normalized gap 3.3Gemma 4 31B source Qwen3.7 Plus source
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Gemma 4 31B: 76.9%Qwen3.7 Plus: 79%Normalized gap 2.1Gemma 4 31B source Qwen3.7 Plus 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

Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Gemma 4 31B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemma 4 31B

Open Weight

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

Gemma 4 31B

Open Weight

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Gemma 4 31B

2026-04-02

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: Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 61.6 versus 52.4, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).

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

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Gemma 4 31B

API / mo$0

Self-host / mo$429

Break-even—

Qwen3.7 Plus

API / mo$0

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence56 rows

Agentic

Gert Labs
Gemma 4 31B35.26%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-Rebench
Gemma 4 31B41.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemma 4 31B75.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

CritPt
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Gemma 4 31B84.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Gemma 4 31B85.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
HLE
Gemma 4 31B26.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Gemma 4 31B19.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

HMMT Feb 2026
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Gemma 4 31B76.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MathVision
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Gemma 4 31B—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 61.6 versus 52.4, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher for coding on the public lane, 52.6 to 42.3. 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, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemma 4 31B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 45.4 to 36.7. Gemma 4 31B 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, Gemma 4 31B 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, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 18, 2026

Watch Gemma 4 31B 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.

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Instruction following

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

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

Self-host vs API cost

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Questions

Which is better, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 31B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Related comparisons

Watch Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.7 Plus