Model comparison

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 49.2 to 20.7.
  • Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper at $2.50 / $7.50 per million input/output tokens, against $2.80 / $8.40 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct and Qwen3.7 Max specifications
Qwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.951.5
Released2024-092026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$2.80$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$8.40$7.50
Results tracked633

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
LMArena Coding—1498
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
OSWorld5%—
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
SimpleBench—70.4%
Kagi LLM Benchmark36%—
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1483
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Epoch Capabilities Index—153.68

Math Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%
LMArena Math—1490

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
LMArena Expert—1488

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97), Qwen3.7 Max: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1107—
Video-MME73.5%—
GeoBench62%—
SpatialViz-Bench33.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English—1474
LMArena Chinese—1530
LMArena Russian—1484

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following—1460

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query—1482

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text—1476
LMArena Creative Writing—1449
EQ-Bench 4—1110
LMArena Multi-Turn—1481

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct 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; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct and Qwen3.7 Max share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper