Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GPT-5.5 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

63.69/100
Margin
3.5pts
winning →
67.22/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.5 Pro #38 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.5 Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus share 2 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to GPT-5.5 Pro; 67 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
GPT-5.5 Pro only
5
Qwen3.7 Plus only
67
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 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 63.69. 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 mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 48.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.2% to 34.7%. GPT-5.5 Pro does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 GPT-5.5 Pro and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGPT-5.5 ProΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathGPT-5.5 Pro48.1Margin→ 44.8Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticGPT-5.5 Pro90.1Margin← 18.4Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 Pro57.2Margin→ 2.9Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
CodingGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · GPT-5.5 ProB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.2%B 34.7%
    Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 22.5
    HLE: GPT-5.5 Pro scored 57.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.5 Pro$30 input / $180 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.5 ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.5 ProNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.5 Pro1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
BrowseCompSource 90.1%—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
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
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
AA-SciCodeSource —45.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
CritPtSource 30.6%9.1%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
HLESource 57.2%34.7%GPT-5.5 Pro leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 43.1%—Not comparable
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —90.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —33.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —22.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —25.5%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 52.4%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 51.000%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 39.600%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 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
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.5 ProQwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 63.69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.2% and 34.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 57.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 48.1. GPT-5.5 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Plus?

GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.1 versus 71.7. Qwen3.7 Plus stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

OpenAI 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.