Model comparison

Qwen1.5-14B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-14B Alibaba (Qwen)

32.7

Rank #253 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 61.6 to 29.8.
  • Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-14B and Qwen3.7 Max specifications
Qwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.751.5
Released2024-02-042026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked1733

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding11381498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11131483
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math11251490
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert10941488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
MMLU68.6%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English10951474
LMArena Chinese11471530
LMArena Russian10461484
LMArena French1116—
LMArena German1043—
LMArena Japanese1019—
LMArena Spanish1085—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following11021460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query11131482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text11281476
LMArena Creative Writing10911449
LMArena Multi-Turn11101481
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-14B better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-14B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-14B and Qwen3.7 Max share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-14B has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper