Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
72.84/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max share 5 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking; 53 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
5
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only
0
Qwen3.7 Max only
53
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Qwen3.7 Max is the better fit if instruction following is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 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

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max 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 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.

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 Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingΔQwen3.7 Max
Inst. FollowingMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking76.5Margin→ 7.9Qwen3.7 Max84.4
KnowledgeMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking57.6Margin→ 6.6Qwen3.7 Max64.2
AgenticMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max77.9
ReasoningMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MathMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingB · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.6%B 92.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 34.8
    GPQA: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking scored 57.6%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. IFEval

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 76.5%B 94.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 17.8
    IFEval: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking scored 76.5%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 94.3%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking128KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
BFCL v4Source 45.6%75.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —65.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —30.6%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —94.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —38.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1273Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.7%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —83.4%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —80.4%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —60.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —66.0%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —48.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
CritPtSource —13.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —69.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ReduxSource 86.2%95%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQASource 57.6%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource 57.6%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
HLESource —41.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —46.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —92.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —38.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —14.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —30.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —22.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1293Not comparable
Inst. FollowingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen3.7 MaxResult
IFEvalSource 76.5%94.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —80.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.7 Max?

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen3.7 Max 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, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 57.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 84.4 versus 76.5. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

JetBrains 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.