Model comparison

Qwen1.5-7B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #270 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.4

Rank #35 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 65.2 to 29.8.
  • Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-7B and Qwen3.7 Max specifications
Qwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.851.4
Released2024-02-042026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked1333

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding11071498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

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

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

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts10661483
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

Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math10801488
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

Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert10551488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
MMLU62.6%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English10581475
LMArena Chinese11401533
LMArena Russian10061482

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following10581460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query10901484

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text10841476
LMArena Creative Writing10351450
LMArena Multi-Turn10611482
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 31.6 in the Noometry coding category.

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper