Model comparison
Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Laguna S 2.1 unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Laguna S 2.1; 65 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Laguna S 2.1 only
- 2
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 65
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Laguna S 2.1 makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Qwen3.7 Plus is the better fit if coding is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
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 | Laguna S 2.1 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Laguna S 2.159.4 | Margin→ 16.2 | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Agentic | Laguna S 2.170.2 | Margin→ 1.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Reasoning | Laguna S 2.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Laguna S 2.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Math | Laguna S 2.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Laguna S 2.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | Laguna S 2.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Inst. Following | Laguna S 2.1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 59.4%B 57.6%Winner: Laguna S 2.1Δ 1.8SWE-bench Pro: Laguna S 2.1 scored 59.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Laguna S 2.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 70.2%B 70.3%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 0.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Laguna S 2.1 scored 70.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Laguna S 2.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Laguna S 2.1$0.1 input / $0.2 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Laguna S 2.1Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Laguna S 2.1Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Laguna S 2.11M | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna S 2.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 70.2% | 70.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 49.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not 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 | — | 936 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna S 2.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 70.2% | 70.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78.5% | 75.8% | Laguna S 2.1 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 59.4% | 57.6% | Laguna S 2.1 leads |
| deepSweSource | 40.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna S 2.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.7% | 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 |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Laguna S 2.1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.7 Plus are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 59.4. Inside this category, SWE Multilingual is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 70.2. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.