Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 87.9% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.845.3
Released2024-02-042026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.40
Output $ / M tokens—$1.60
Results tracked2232

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding11651473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SciCode—45.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.3%—
HumanEval+59.1%—
MBPP+61.6%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts11481460
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math11641466
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond28.8%87.9%
LMArena Expert11361467

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English11351445
LMArena Chinese11861510
LMArena French11591473
LMArena German10841471
LMArena Japanese10611413
LMArena Korean10501415
LMArena Russian11041457
LMArena Spanish11101457

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following11411440

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query11571455

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text11661455
LMArena Creative Writing11371439
LMArena Multi-Turn11601460

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-72B or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.6 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper