Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief

Qwen3.7 Plus

CurrentReleased Jun 3, 2026ProprietaryReasoning1M context

Released Jun 3, 2026 see all recent releases

Decision reading
Qwen3.7 Plus scores 62.3 out of 100 and ranks #57 of 232. This profile shows 52 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multilingual at #3. No comparable first-party API price is published in the catalog.

Data as of September 4, 2026 · How the score is built

Strongest published evidence

Multilingual ranks #3. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Validate before choosing

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

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

62.3/100

field median 58.1

#57 of 232 ranked models

Price

Not listed

input median $1

No comparable first-party hosted token rate

Speed

55tok/s

field median 92 tok/s

First token 38.14 s

Context

1Mtokens

field median 256,000

Reported for this model; direct source link not stored

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 Plus category percentile values

  • Agentic17th percentile
  • Coding73rd percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • Knowledge73rd percentile
  • MathNot eligible
  • Multilingual82nd percentile
  • Multimodal64th percentile
  • Instruction following87th percentile

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#126/151
  2. Coding#51/183
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Knowledge#50/181
  5. MathNot ranked
  6. Multilingual#3/12
  7. Multimodal#18/48
  8. Inst. Following#17/120
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

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. Agentic11/11 verified
  2. Coding7/7 verified
  3. Reasoning2/2 verified
  4. Knowledge7/7 verified
  5. Math3/3 verified
  6. Multilingual5/5 verified
  7. Multimodal15/15 verified
  8. Inst. Following2/2 verified
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

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
Current
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

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 #126 of 151Percentile 17thWeight 22%11 benchmarksVerified37.7
CodingRank #51 of 183Percentile 73rdWeight 20%7 benchmarksVerified53.1
ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified73.7
KnowledgeRank #50 of 181Percentile 73rdWeight 12%7 benchmarksVerified56.8
MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%3 benchmarksVerified78.3
MultilingualRank #3 of 12Percentile 82ndWeight 7%5 benchmarksVerified78.9
MultimodalRank #18 of 48Percentile 64thWeight 12%15 benchmarksVerified72.5
Inst. FollowingRank #17 of 120Percentile 87thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified91.1

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.

Coding7 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore57.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 81.2%

Gap23.6 behindWeightWeighted 25%
LiveCodeBenchLiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for CodeScore89.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 91.6%

Gap2 behindWeightWeighted 15%
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark VerifiedScore77.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap18.3 behindWeightWeighted 10%
SciCodeScientific Code BenchmarkScore51.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1%

Gap8.8 behindWeightWeighted 10%
SWE MultilingualScore75.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.5%

Gap13.7 behindWeightWeighted 5%
Terminal-Bench 2.0Score70.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9%

Gap21.6 behindWeightDisplay only
NL2RepoScore41.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 · 61.5%

Gap20.4 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic11 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Terminal-Bench 2.0Score70.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-5.6 Sol · 91.9%

Gap21.6 behindWeightWeighted 30%
OSWorld-VerifiedScore73.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1%

Gap12.8 behindWeightWeighted 25%
OSWorld 2.0Score2.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6%

Gap69.8 behindWeightWeighted 10%
Benchmark exact
QwenClawBenchScore61.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 64.3%

Gap2.5 behindWeightDisplay only
Claw-EvalScore62.7%Versus best verified row

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

Gap18.7 behindWeightDisplay only
BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4Score72.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 75.0%

Gap2.1 behindWeightDisplay only
MCP AtlasScore73.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1%

Gap14.9 behindWeightDisplay only
VITA-BenchScore45.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 47.9%

Gap2.3 behindWeightDisplay only
DeepPlanningScore62.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 62.3%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
AndroidWorldScore81.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 85.3%

Gap4.3 behindWeightDisplay only
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI runScore52.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3%

Gap34.5 behindWeightDisplay only
Reasoning2 rows
Reasoning benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MRCRv2Score91.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.6%

Gap1.9 behindWeightWeighted 20%
CritPtCritical Physics TasksScore9.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 31.7%

Gap22.6 behindWeightDisplay only
Knowledge7 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore34.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65%

Gap30.3 behindWeightWeighted 35%
MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding ProfessionalScore88.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6%

Gap1.1 behindWeightWeighted 20%
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&AScore90.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap5.7 behindWeightWeighted 7%
SuperGPQASuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate DisciplinesScore71.4%Versus best verified row

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

Gap2.5 behindWeightWeighted 7%
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore90.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap5.7 behindWeightDisplay only
MMLU-ReduxScore94.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 95%

Gap0.5 behindWeightDisplay only
MMMLUScore89.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Interfaze Beta · 90.9%

Gap1.9 behindWeightDisplay only
Math3 rows
Math benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026Score92.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1%

Gap4.2 behindWeightWeighted 25%
IMOAnswerBenchScore86.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9%

Gap4.9 behindWeightDisplay only
ApexScore22.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Hy4 preview · 74.2%

Gap51.5 behindWeightDisplay only
Multilingual5 rows
Multilingual benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MMLU-ProXScore85.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 87%

Gap1.6 behindWeightWeighted 100%
NOVA-63Score58.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.5 397B · 59.1%

Gap0.3 behindWeightDisplay only
INCLUDEScore83.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.8%

Gap6.8 behindWeightDisplay only
MAXIFEScore88.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.2%

Gap0.4 behindWeightDisplay only
PolyMathScore84.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 86.5%

Gap2.5 behindWeightDisplay only
Multimodal15 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding ProScore79%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6%

Gap4.6 behindWeightWeighted 40%
CharXivCharXiv ReasoningScore85.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5%

Gap7.6 behindWeightWeighted 20%
MathVisionScore90.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2%

Gap4.9 behindWeightDisplay only
ERQAScore69.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 77.8%

Gap8 behindWeightDisplay only
MedXpertQA (MM)MedXpertQA MultimodalScore71.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 80.4%

Gap9.4 behindWeightDisplay only
ScreenSpot ProScore79.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 92.7%

Gap13.7 behindWeightDisplay only
SimpleVQAScore81.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
MMSearch-PlusScore41.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 41.4%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
RealWorldQAScore86.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next · 88.5%

Gap1.6 behindWeightDisplay only
OmniDocBench 1.5Score91.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 92.1%

Gap0.7 behindWeightDisplay only
OCRBench V2Score70.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 74.2%

Gap3.5 behindWeightDisplay only
ODINW13Score51.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 51.1%

GapBest verifiedWeightDisplay only
Video-MME (with subtitle)Video-MME with subtitleScore88.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 90.4%

Gap2.4 behindWeightDisplay only
VideoMMMUScore85.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 88.7%

Gap3.3 behindWeightDisplay only
MLVU (M-Avg)MLVU mean averageScore87.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 90.8%

Gap3.4 behindWeightDisplay only
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%
IFEvalInstruction-Following EvalScore94.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.5-27B · 95%

Gap0.4 behindWeightDisplay only

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. A successor's displayed score stays at least 0.1 points above its predecessor; raw benchmark rows do not move. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Apr 2, 2026

    Qwen3.6 Plus

    Score 61.5 · Price not listed

  2. Jun 3, 2026 · you are here

    Qwen3.7 Plus

    Score 62.3 · Price not listed

Base entry

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 Plus ranks #57 of 232 on the public leaderboard with a score of 62.29/100. Its source-verified position is #43 of 130.

Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Alibaba Cloud's June 3, 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus launch article and Model Studio API examples. BenchLM maps directly comparable table rows and leaves provider-specific rows such as CoWorkBench, SkillsBench, MCP-Mark, SpreadsheetBench-v1, KernelBench L3, QwenWorldBench, QwenVision2Code, QwenSVG, WorldVQA, BabyVision, BC-VL, MMBC, LingoQA, Ego3D-Bench, SURDS, VLADBench, TVBench, LVBench, and CountQA outside the current schema.

Its explicit predecessor is Qwen3.6 Plus. 52 of 422 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multilingual at #3, while its lowest eligible position is Agentic at #126. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Radar

Qwen3.7 Plus release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Already tracking Qwen3.7 Plus? See the free Radar Brief for what changes next.

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #57 out of 232 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 62.29/100. Its evidence status is Supported, and this profile shows 52 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Qwen3.7 Plus good for knowledge and understanding?

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #50 out of 181 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 56.8/100. 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 Plus good for coding and programming?

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #51 out of 183 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 53.1/100. 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 Plus good for mathematics?

Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Plus good for reasoning and logic?

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

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #126 out of 151 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 37.7/100. 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 Plus good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #18 out of 48 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 72.5/100. 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 Plus good for instruction following?

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #17 out of 120 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 91.1/100. 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 Plus good for multilingual tasks?

Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #3 out of 12 eligible models for multilingual tasks, with a public category score of 78.9/100. 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 Plus have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Qwen3.7 Plus currently has 70 source-displayable rows across 422 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 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus 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.

Compare Qwen3.7 Plus with every tracked model410 comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Watch Qwen3.7 Plus 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.