Alibaba · Model release
Data as of September 30, 2026 · How the score is built
Released Jun 3, 20261M context
Qwen3.7 Plus
Decision readingQwen3.7 Plus scores 56.5 out of 100 and ranks #59 of 211. 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.
Released Jun 3, 2026 — see all recent releases
Qwen3.7 Plus will be repriced, updated or retired. Get each notice with its source and date. Follow model changes
Share or export
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
56.5/100
field median 52.4#59 of 211 ranked models
Public
#59of 211
Verified #31 of 74
Price
Not listed
input median $1No comparable first-party hosted token rate
Speed
56tok/s
field median 89 tok/sFirst token 37.72 s
Context
1Mtokens
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
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.
Source-linked · 52 displayable benchmark rows
Follow model changesCategory 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 | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticRank #69 of 119Percentile 42ndWeight 22%11 benchmarksVerified | 35.2 | 11 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| CodingRank #58 of 144Percentile 60thWeight 20%7 benchmarksVerified | 42.8 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| ReasoningRank Not rankedWeight 17%2 benchmarksVerified | 75.2 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultimodalRank #18 of 49Percentile 65thWeight 12%15 benchmarksVerified | 73.5 | 15 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| KnowledgeRank #58 of 170Percentile 66thWeight 12%7 benchmarksVerified | 52.6 | 7 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualRank #3 of 16Percentile 87thWeight 7%5 benchmarksVerified | 95.7 | 5 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank #18 of 124Percentile 86thWeight 5%2 benchmarksVerified | 89.2 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%3 benchmarksVerified | 78.2 | 3 benchmarks | Verified |
52 of 496 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow 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.
- Agentic11/11 verified
- Coding7/7 verified
- Reasoning2/2 verified
- Multimodal15/15 verified
- Knowledge7/7 verified
- Multilingual5/5 verified
- Inst. Following2/2 verified
- Math3/3 verified
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
- Agentic42nd percentile
- Coding60th percentile
- ReasoningNot eligible
- Multimodal65th percentile
- Knowledge66th percentile
- Multilingual87th percentile
- Instruction following86th percentile
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- Agentic#69/119
- Coding#58/144
- ReasoningNot ranked
- Multimodal#18/49
- Knowledge#58/170
- Multilingual#3/16
- Inst. Following#18/124
- MathNot ranked
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
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | Score57.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9% | Gap32.3 behind | Weight26% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SciCodeScientific Code Benchmark | Score51.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu · 60.1% | Gap8.8 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SWE Multilingual | Score75.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 93.9% | Gap18.1 behind | Weight5% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score70.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82.0% | Gap11.7 behind | WeightScored in Agentic | Provider exact |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified | Score77.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96% | Gap18.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| NL2Repo | Score41.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 65.4% | Gap24.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| LiveCodeBenchLiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code | Score89.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 91.6% | Gap2 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Agentic11 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | Score2.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 72.6% | Gap69.8 behind | Weight10% ref. weight | Benchmark exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | Score70.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82% | Gap11.7 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| OSWorld-Verified | Score73.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1% | Gap12.8 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MCP Atlas | Score73.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 88.1% | Gap14.9 behind | Weight4% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI run | Score52.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3% | Gap34.5 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | |
| BFCL v4Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard v4 | Score72.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: BTL-3 · 88.5% | Gap15.6 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| QwenClawBench | Score61.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 64.3% | Gap2.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Claw-Eval | Score62.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Ornith-1.5-397B · 81.4% | Gap18.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| VITA-Bench | Score45.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 47.9% | Gap2.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| DeepPlanning | Score62.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 62.3% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| AndroidWorld | Score81.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash · 87.1% | Gap6.1 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Reasoning2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRCRv2 | Score91.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.6% | Gap1.9 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | Provider exact |
| CritPtCritical Physics Tasks | Score9.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 31.7% | Gap22.6 behind | WeightFeeds overall | Provider exact |
Multimodal15 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro | Score79% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Gemini 3.5 Flash · 83.6% | Gap4.6 behind | WeightWeighted 40% | Provider exact |
| CharXivCharXiv Reasoning | Score85.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5% | Gap7.6 behind | WeightWeighted 20% | Provider exact |
| MathVision | Score90.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2% | Gap4.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ERQA | Score69.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 77.8% | Gap8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MedXpertQA (MM)MedXpertQA Multimodal | Score71.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 80.4% | Gap9.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ScreenSpot Pro | Score79.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 92.7% | Gap13.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| SimpleVQA | Score81.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 81.7% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MMSearch-Plus | Score41.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 41.4% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| RealWorldQA | Score86.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next · 88.5% | Gap1.6 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | Score91.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 92.1% | Gap0.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| OCRBench V2 | Score70.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 74.2% | Gap3.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| ODINW13 | Score51.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Plus · 51.1% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Video-MME with subtitle | Score88.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 90.4% | Gap2.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| VideoMMMU | Score85.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 88.7% | Gap3.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MLVU (M-Avg)MLVU mean average | Score87.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 90.8% | Gap3.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Knowledge7 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLEHumanity's Last Exam | Score34.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65% | Gap30.3 behind | Weight44% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding Professional | Score88.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6% | Gap1.1 behind | Weight6% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score90.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap5.7 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| SuperGPQASuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate Disciplines | Score71.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) · 73.9% | Gap2.5 behind | Weight2% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| GPQA-DGPQA Diamond | Score90.3% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0% | Gap5.7 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MMLU-Redux | Score94.5% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 95% | Gap0.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MMMLU | Score89.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Interfaze Beta · 90.9% | Gap1.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Multilingual5 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProX | Score85.4% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 87% | Gap1.6 behind | WeightWeighted 100% | Provider exact |
| NOVA-63 | Score58.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.5 397B · 59.1% | Gap0.3 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| INCLUDE | Score83.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 89.8% | Gap6.8 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| MAXIFE | Score88.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.2% | Gap0.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| PolyMath | Score84.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 86.5% | Gap2.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Inst. Following2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFBenchInstruction Following Benchmark | Score79.1% | Versus best verified row Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 85% | Gap5.9 behind | WeightWeighted 70% | Provider exact |
| IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval | Score94.6% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.5-27B · 95% | Gap0.4 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math3 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament February 2026 | Score92.9% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 97.1% | Gap4.2 behind | WeightWeighted 25% | Provider exact |
| IMOAnswerBench | Score86.0% | Versus best verified row Best verified: dots3-note Preview · 90.9% | Gap4.9 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
| Apex | Score22.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: Hy4 preview · 74.2% | Gap51.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 52 rowsLineage
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.
Base entry
Qwen3.7 Plus release history
Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Qwen3.7 Plus 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
- 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
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 #59 of 211 on the public leaderboard with a score of 56.54/100. Its source-verified position is #31 of 74.
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 496 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 #69. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
Last updated September 30, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does Qwen3.7 Plus perform overall in AI benchmarks?
Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #59 out of 211 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 56.54/100. 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 #58 out of 170 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 52.6/100. 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 #58 out of 144 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 42.8/100. 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 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 #69 out of 119 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 35.2/100. 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 Plus good for multimodal and grounded tasks?
Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #18 out of 49 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 73.5/100. 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 #18 out of 124 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 Plus good for multilingual tasks?
Qwen3.7 Plus ranks #3 out of 16 eligible models for multilingual tasks, with a public category score of 95.7/100. 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 496 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.