Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o1 #129 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 14 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to o1; 55 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- o1 only
- 2
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 55
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 48.1. 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 9.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 75.7% to 90.3%. o1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o1.
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 | o1 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | o19.3 | Margin→ 83.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Knowledge | o175.7 | Margin← 15.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Inst. Following | o192.2 | Margin← 7.7 | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
| Agentic | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Reasoning | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Multilingual | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1$15 input / $60 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o198 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o132.29 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1200K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 62.6% | 93% | 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 |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 936 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.7% | 55.9% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 35.8% | 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
Knowledgeo1 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 91.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 75.7% | 90.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.4% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.7% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.7% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.5% | 2.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.7% | 22.2% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 69.3% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| 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 | o1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, o1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 48.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 75.7% and 90.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, o1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 9.3. o1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for instruction following, o1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 84.5. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.