Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

MAI-Thinking-1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
67.22/100
2 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: MAI-Thinking-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. MAI-Thinking-1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 9 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to MAI-Thinking-1; 60 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
9
MAI-Thinking-1 only
4
Qwen3.7 Plus only
60
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. MAI-Thinking-1 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority; Qwen3.7 Plus is the better fit if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 5 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 Qwen3.7 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.

Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for MAI-Thinking-1.

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 Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryMAI-Thinking-1ΔQwen3.7 Plus
AgenticMAI-Thinking-146.0Margin→ 25.7Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-172.5Margin← 12.4Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
CodingMAI-Thinking-165.5Margin→ 10.1Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
MathMAI-Thinking-189.7Margin→ 3.2Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
Inst. FollowingMAI-Thinking-185.0Margin← 0.5Qwen3.7 Plus84.5
ReasoningMAI-Thinking-1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualMAI-Thinking-1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalMAI-Thinking-1Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · MAI-Thinking-1B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 46%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 24.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 46%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 84.9%B 92.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 8
    HMMT Feb 2026: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 92.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 84.2%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.1
    GPQA: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 85%B 79.1%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 5.9
    IFBench: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 85%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79.1%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.8%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 4.8
    SWE-bench Pro: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 52.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMAI-Thinking-1Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMAI-Thinking-1Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMAI-Thinking-1Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMAI-Thinking-1256KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.5%77.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%—Not comparable
CritPtSource —9.1%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 84.2%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource 84.2%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ProSource 85%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SimpleQASource 31%—Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%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
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AIME 2025Source 97%—Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%92.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 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
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 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. FollowingMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkMAI-Thinking-1Qwen3.7 PlusResult
IFBenchSource 85%79.1%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

MAI-Thinking-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 knowledge tasks, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.5 versus 60.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 65.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 89.7. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 46. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, MAI-Thinking-1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 85 versus 84.5. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Microsoft 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.