Model comparison
Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 17 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); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen3.7 Plus share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Llama 4 Maverick; 52 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Llama 4 Maverick only
- 1
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 52
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 4 Maverick only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 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 23.49. 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 0.7.
Qwen3.7 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while Llama 4 Maverick is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Llama 4 Maverick0.7 | Margin→ 92.2 | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Agentic | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Reasoning | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Multilingual | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Inst. Following | Llama 4 MaverickNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Llama 4 Maverick$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Llama 4 Maverick121 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Llama 4 Maverick0.95 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Llama 4 Maverick1M | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.3% | 20.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 17.8% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 21.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | -16 | 936 | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | 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 |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 16.3% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 33.1% | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.3% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 67.1% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.8% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -41.8% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.3% | 22.2% | Llama 4 Maverick leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.3% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| 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 |
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 62.1% | 80.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 901 | 1288 | 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 23.49.
Which is better for math, Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 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.