Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemma 4 E4B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

43.2/100
Margin
24.0pts
winning →
67.22/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E4B #155 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E4B and Qwen3.7 Plus share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Gemma 4 E4B; 55 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
Gemma 4 E4B only
0
Qwen3.7 Plus only
55
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E4B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 43.2. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.

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 E4B and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGemma 4 E4BΔQwen3.7 Plus
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B67.4Margin← 7.3Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MathGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingGemma 4 E4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemma 4 E4BB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 58.6%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 31.7
    GPQA: Gemma 4 E4B scored 58.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 19.1
    MMLU-Pro: Gemma 4 E4B scored 69.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. 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 E4BQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 E4BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 E4BNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 E4B128KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 20.8%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-SciCodeSource 24.4%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
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 30.7%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.6%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 58.6%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ProSource 69.4%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 12.5%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 57.6%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 3.7%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -20.0%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 8.6%22.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 31.3%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 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
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 51.4%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus 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
BenchmarkGemma 4 E4BQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.2%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemma 4 E4B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 43.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 58.6% and 90.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E4B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond 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 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.