Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.4

Rank #35 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B 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 61.7 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 90.9% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.051.4
Released2024-02-042026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked2133

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding11551498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
BigCodeBench Instruct32.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete42%—
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-32B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11311483
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—153.74

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math11551488
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

Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond30.7%90.9%
LMArena Expert11261488
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
MMLU74.4%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English11061475
LMArena Chinese11761533
LMArena Russian10731482
LMArena French1100—
LMArena German1058—
LMArena Japanese1027—
LMArena Korean1007—
LMArena Spanish1089—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following11161460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query11461484

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text11371476
LMArena Creative Writing10831450
LMArena Multi-Turn11401482
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen3.7 Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper