Model comparison
Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Llama 4 Maverick #191 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen3.5 397B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Llama 4 Maverick; 39 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Llama 4 Maverick only
- 2
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 39
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 4 Maverick only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 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
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 23.49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 0.7.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Maverick. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Llama 4 Maverick gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Llama 4 Maverick | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Llama 4 Maverick0.7 | Margin→ 89.9 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Agentic | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Multilingual | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Llama 4 Maverick$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Llama 4 Maverick has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Llama 4 Maverick121 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | Llama 4 Maverick has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Llama 4 Maverick0.95 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Llama 4 Maverick reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Llama 4 Maverick1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Llama 4 Maverick lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.3% | 19.9% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 17.8% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 23.1% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | -16 | 962 | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.3% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 67.1% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.8% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -41.8% | -29.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.3% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.3% | 89.1% | Llama 4 Maverick leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins6 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 62.1% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 903 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 23.49.
Which is better for math, Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 0.7. Llama 4 Maverick stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.