Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.7 Max vs QwQ-32B

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.7 Max scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 49.2 to 23.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index51.539.8
Released2026-05-192024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$2.50—
Output $ / M tokens$7.50—
Results tracked3336

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14981333
SWE-bench Verified77.3%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1515—
SciCode48.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench1,189—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
GBAEval0.4%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles19%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14831325
Epoch Capabilities Index153.68137.6
SimpleBench70.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)85.1%—
CritPt13.4%—
EBR-Bench9.5%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles32%—
DTBench92.3%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA44%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%59.2%
LMArena Math14901359
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)64.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 434.1%—
ProofBench26%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond90.9%65.3%
LMArena Expert14881324
SimpleQA Verified55.8%—
Confabulations—15.6%

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14741305
LMArena Chinese15301378
LMArena Russian14841297
LMArena French—1336
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14601297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14821308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14761329
LMArena Creative Writing14491288
LMArena Multi-Turn14811314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
EQ-Bench 41110—
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.7 Max better than QwQ-32B?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.7 Max has 33 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper