Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 7 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 32.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 24.6% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 64.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper at $1.25 / $10 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.051.5
Released2025-03-252026-05-19
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1.05M1M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$10$7.50
Results tracked7833

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
SWE-bench Verified57.6%77.3%
LMArena WebDev12271515
SciCode42.8%48.8%
LMArena Coding14521498
ALE-Bench785.521,189
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
CadEval64%—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
BALROG43.3%—
GBAEval—0.4%
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
SimpleBench62.4%70.4%
CritPt2%13.4%
Chess Puzzles20%19%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551483
DTBench82.4%92.3%
LMCA34.8%44%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32153.68
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
ARC-AGI-141%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
EBR-Bench—9.5%
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 40%34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%95.6%
LMArena Math14501490
ProofBench—26%
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond85.3%90.9%
LMArena Expert14521488
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English14511474
LMArena Chinese15071530
LMArena Russian14611484
LMArena French1472—
LMArena German1487—
LMArena Japanese1461—
LMArena Korean1434—
LMArena Spanish1473—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14371460
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query14491482
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text14581476
LMArena Creative Writing14541449
LMArena Multi-Turn14531481
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421—
WildBench85.7%—
EQ-Bench 4—1110
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 45.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $1.25 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper