Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Qwen3.7 Max
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 51.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.
Google
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.7 to 48.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 55% for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and 19% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper at $2.50 / $7.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | |
| Noometry Index | 56.7 | 51.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-19 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $12 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 71 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 42.7 (#88), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.6% | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1446 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 58.9% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1483 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,161 | 1,189 |
| DeepSWE | 11.7% | — |
| GSO | 22.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 72.1% | — |
| MirrorCode | 8.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#33), Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 0.8% | 0.4% |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 35.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 26% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 47.8% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 22% | — |
| BALROG | 57% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.1% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1211 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 77% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,774 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#9), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 79.6% | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 97.4% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 17.7% | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 55% | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | 9.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | 1483 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | 32% |
| DTBench | 97.1% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 53.8% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.92 | 153.74 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 77.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 36.8% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 79.4% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 61.8 (#28), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.6% | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | 26% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1485 | 1488 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 86.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 36.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 16.7% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.8 (#3), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94.4% | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.5% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1484 | 1488 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.4% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 38.1 (#60), Qwen3.7 Max: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 26.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 26.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1444 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.1 (#11), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1475 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1528 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 1496 | 1482 |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.1 (#31), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | 1460 |
Long Context Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.3 (#17), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1484 |
| CL-bench | 20.8% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 16.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.3 (#36), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1480 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1482 | 1450 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1142 | 1110 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1486 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1491 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 51.4 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists at $2 and $12.
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 42.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Qwen3.7 Max share?
33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.