Skip to main content

Model comparison

MAI-Thinking-1 vs Qwen3 235B 2507

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
56.02/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. MAI-Thinking-1 and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to MAI-Thinking-1; 2 to Qwen3 235B 2507.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
MAI-Thinking-1 only
11
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
2
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. MAI-Thinking-1 makes more sense if you need the larger 256K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; Qwen3 235B 2507 is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

MAI-Thinking-1 and Qwen3 235B 2507 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.

MAI-Thinking-1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 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. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.

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 MAI-Thinking-1 and Qwen3 235B 2507
CategoryMAI-Thinking-1ΔQwen3 235B 2507
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-172.5Margin 6.4Qwen3 235B 250778.9
AgenticMAI-Thinking-146.0MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
CodingMAI-Thinking-165.5MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MathMAI-Thinking-189.7MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MultilingualMAI-Thinking-1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 250779.4
Inst. FollowingMAI-Thinking-185.0MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · MAI-Thinking-1B · Qwen3 235B 2507
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 84.2%B 77.5%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 6.7
    GPQA: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.2%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.
  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 85%B 83%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 2
    MMLU-Pro: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 85%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 83%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMAI-Thinking-1Not availableQwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMAI-Thinking-1Not availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMAI-Thinking-1Not availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMAI-Thinking-1256KQwen3 235B 2507128KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
GPQASource 84.2%77.5%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 85%83%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 62.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
AIME 2025Source 97%Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
MMLU-ProXSource 79.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3 235B 2507Result
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

MAI-Thinking-1 and Qwen3 235B 2507 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 knowledge tasks, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 72.5. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

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.