Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

61.08/100
Margin
6.1pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.7 Plus share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to Gemma 4 31B; 49 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
Gemma 4 31B only
9
Qwen3.7 Plus only
49
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 61.08. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.6 against 41.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 26.5% to 34.7%.

Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 31B.

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 Gemma 4 31B and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGemma 4 31BΔQwen3.7 Plus
CodingGemma 4 31B41.6Margin→ 34.0Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeGemma 4 31B52.9Margin→ 7.2Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
MultimodalGemma 4 31B76.9Margin→ 4.6Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
AgenticGemma 4 31BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
ReasoningGemma 4 31BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MathGemma 4 31BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualGemma 4 31BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingGemma 4 31BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemma 4 31BB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 26.5%B 34.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 8.2
    HLE: Gemma 4 31B scored 26.5%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6
    GPQA: Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 85.2%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.3
    MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 85.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 76.9%B 79%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 2.1
    MMMU-Pro: Gemma 4 31B scored 76.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 31BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 31BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 31B256KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 14.4%20.8%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 59.9%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 15.2%21.8%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 804936Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 35.26%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 28.3%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 37.3%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 15.1%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 36.4%—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
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-RebenchSource 41.6%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 75.2%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 43.4%55.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 43.4%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
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 62.0%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 1.4%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 84.3%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ProSource 85.2%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 26.5%34.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 19.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 29.4%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 85.7%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 22.7%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -45.4%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 19.9%22.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 81.6%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Openness IndexSource 38.9%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 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
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 76.9%79%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 73.4%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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
BenchmarkGemma 4 31BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 75.6%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

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

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 61.08. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 26.5% and 34.7%.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 52.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 76.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google 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.