Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.7 Max is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public point estimate, 63.46 versus 34.86. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Arcee AI
34.86/100
Estimated · Public rank #146
Conditional range 25.1–44.6
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public coding point estimate, 45.4 to 20, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max has the larger documented context window.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Trinity-Large-Thinking is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Qwen3.7 Max | Trinity-Large-Thinking | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 45.4Supported · #54/144 | 20.0Supported · #118/144 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 1 public rows | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Agentic | 39.3Supported · #60/119 | 12.7Estimated · #108/119 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 59.8Supported · #41/171 | 33.7Estimated · #120/171 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 89.2#17/125 | 66.3#68/125 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 76.3Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 48.3Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | 100.0#1/16 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 81.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Trinity-Large-Thinking has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.7 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Qwen3.7 Max
1M
Trinity-Large-Thinking
512K
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Qwen3.7 Max
No comparable hosted API rate
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not published
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Not sourced
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Max
Reasoning
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Max
Proprietary
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Max
Proprietary
Trinity-Large-Thinking
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Max
2026-05-16
Trinity-Large-Thinking
2026-03-10
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public point estimate, 63.46 versus 34.86. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Qwen3.7 Max has the higher public coding point estimate, 45.4 to 20, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 39.3 to 12.7. Trinity-Large-Thinking is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Qwen3.7 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 512K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceQwen3.7 Max leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified*
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Qwen3.7 Max leads this result
HLE
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-ProX
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Not directly comparable
Apex
Not directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated October 2, 2026
