Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of October 2, 2026 · How the score is built

Superseded.Alibaba has newer models in this line:Qwen3.8 Max Preview
SupersededProprietaryReasoning

Released May 16, 20261M context

Qwen3.7 Max

Decision readingQwen3.7 Max scores 63.5 out of 100 and ranks #43 of 212. This profile shows 41 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multilingual at #1. No comparable first-party API price is published in the catalog.

Released May 16, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

63.5/100

field median 52.2#43 of 212 ranked models

Public

#43of 212

Verified #22 of 74

Price

API rate not published

input median $0.95No comparable first-party hosted token rate

Speed

202tok/s

field median 89 tok/sFirst token 14.15 s

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored

Strongest published evidence

Multilingual ranks #1. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Validate before choosing

41 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.

Source-linked · 41 displayable benchmark rows

Follow model changes

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #60 of 119Percentile 50thWeight 22%10 benchmarksVerified
39.3
CodingRank #54 of 144Percentile 63rdWeight 20%10 benchmarksVerified
45.4
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified
76.3
MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
KnowledgeRank #41 of 171Percentile 76thWeight 12%9 benchmarksVerified
59.8
MultilingualRank #1 of 16Percentile 100thWeight 7%5 benchmarksVerified
100.0
Inst. FollowingRank #17 of 125Percentile 87thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified
89.2
MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%3 benchmarksVerified
81.9

41 of 645 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic10/10 verified
  2. Coding10/10 verified
  3. Reasoning2/2 verified
  4. MultimodalNot measured
  5. Knowledge9/9 verified
  6. Multilingual5/5 verified
  7. Inst. Following2/2 verified
  8. Math3/3 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Qwen3.7 Max category percentile values

  • Agentic50th percentile
  • Coding63rd percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • MultimodalNot eligible
  • Knowledge76th percentile
  • Multilingual100th percentile
  • Instruction following87th percentile
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#60/119
  2. Coding#54/144
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. MultimodalNot ranked
  5. Knowledge#41/171
  6. Multilingual#1/16
  7. Inst. Following#17/125
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding10 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore60.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9%

Gap29.3 behindWeight26% ref. weight
Provider exact
SciCodeScientific Code BenchmarkScore53.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1%

Gap6.6 behindWeight10% ref. weight
Provider exact
LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI runScore87.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5%

Gap3.4 behindWeight8% ref. weight
SWE MultilingualScore78.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9%

Gap15.6 behindWeight5% ref. weight
Provider exact
Terminal-Bench 2.0Score69.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82.0%

Gap12.3 behindWeightScored in Agentic
Provider exact
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore80.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap15.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
NL2RepoScore47.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 65.4%

Gap18.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
LiveCodeBenchLiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for CodeScore91.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 91.6%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
OpenHarmony BenchOpenHarmony Bench v1.0Score53.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 60.8%

Gap7.4 behindWeightDisplay only
SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI runScore68.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0%

Gap28.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic10 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Terminal-Bench 2.0Score69.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82%

Gap12.3 behindWeight6% ref. weight
Provider exact
MCP AtlasScore76.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1%

Gap11.7 behindWeight4% ref. weight
Provider exact
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI runScore61.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3%

Gap26.3 behindWeight3% ref. weight
BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4Score75.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: BTL-3 · 88.5%

Gap13.5 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Provider exact
HLE w/ toolsHumanity's Last Exam with toolsScore53.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 67.7%

Gap14.2 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Provider exact
QwenClawBenchScore64.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 64.3%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
Claw-EvalScore65.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4%

Gap16.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
VITA-BenchScore47.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 47.9%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game BenchmarkScore64.27%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97%

Gap8.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Benchmark exact
ResearchClawBenchScore18.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 21.1%

Gap2.4 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning2 rows
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MRCRv2Score90.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.6%

Gap3.2 behindWeightWeighted 20%
Provider exact
CritPtCritical Physics TasksScore13.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 31.7%

Gap18.3 behindWeightFeeds overall
Provider exact
Knowledge9 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore41.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65%

Gap23.6 behindWeight44% ref. weight
Provider exact
MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding ProfessionalScore89.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6%

GapBest verifiedWeight6% ref. weight
Provider exact
MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI runScore89.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4%

Gap3.1 behindWeight6% ref. weight
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&AScore92.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap3.6 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Provider exact
SuperGPQASuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate DisciplinesScore73.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) · 73.9%

Gap0.3 behindWeight2% ref. weight
Provider exact
GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI runScore90.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5%

Gap5.3 behindWeight2% ref. weight
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore92.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap3.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
MMLU-ReduxScore95%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 95%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
MMMLUScore90.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Interfaze Beta · 90.9%

Gap0.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
Multilingual5 rows
Multilingual benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MMLU-ProXScore87%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 87%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 100%
Provider exact
NOVA-63Score59.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.5 397B · 59.1%

Gap0.1 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
INCLUDEScore86.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.8%

Gap3.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
MAXIFEScore89.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.2%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
PolyMathScore86.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 86.5%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
Inst. Following2 rows
Inst. Following benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
IFBenchInstruction Following BenchmarkScore79.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 85%

Gap5.9 behindWeightWeighted 70%
Provider exact
IFEvalInstruction-Following EvalScore94.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.5-27B · 95%

Gap0.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
Math3 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026Score97.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightWeighted 25%
Provider exact
IMOAnswerBenchScore90.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9%

Gap0.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact
ApexScore44.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Hy4 preview · 74.2%

Gap29.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Provider exact

Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value

All 41 rows

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. May 16, 2026 · you are here

    Qwen3.7 Max

    Score 63.5 · Price not listed

  2. Jul 19, 2026

    Qwen3.8 Max Preview

    Not publicly ranked · Price not listed

Base entry

Radar

Qwen3.7 Max release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Qwen3.7 Max in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.

Radar

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
Not published
Context window
1M
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
Not sourced yet
Output modalities
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not disclosed by the provider
Availability
Not sourced yet
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
Superseded
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Not documented in the pricing record
Self-host
Weights are not published
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #43 of 212 on the public leaderboard with a score of 63.46/100. Its source-verified position is #22 of 74.

Qwen3.7 Max is a proprietary model with a 1M context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Official exact-value snapshot from Qwen's May 16, 2026 Qwen3.7 launch post. The post names the API model as qwen3.7-max, describes a 1,000,000-token context window with thinking enabled, and says Model Studio availability is coming soon.

41 of 645 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multilingual at #1, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #60. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Last updated October 2, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Questions

How does Qwen3.7 Max perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #43 out of 212 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 63.46/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 41 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for knowledge and understanding?

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #41 out of 171 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 59.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for coding and programming?

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #54 out of 144 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 45.4/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for mathematics?

Qwen3.7 Max has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for reasoning and logic?

Qwen3.7 Max has source-displayable benchmark coverage for reasoning and logic, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #60 out of 119 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 39.3/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for instruction following?

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #17 out of 125 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 89.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.7 Max good for multilingual tasks?

Qwen3.7 Max ranks #1 out of 16 eligible models for multilingual tasks, with a public category score of 100/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Does Qwen3.7 Max have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Qwen3.7 Max currently has 57 source-displayable rows across 645 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has a reported context window of 1M in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.

Watch Qwen3.7 Max in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Compare Qwen3.7 Max with every tracked model782 comparisons