Model comparison

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Sonar

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Sonar

Perplexity

38.5

Rank #187 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 21.1.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $1 for Sonar.
Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Qwen3.7 Plus and Sonar specifications
	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
Provider	Alibaba (Qwen)	Perplexity
Noometry Index	45.3	38.5
Released	2026-06-02	2024-01-01
Weights	Proprietary	Proprietary
Context window	1M	128K
Max output	131K	4K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.40	$1
Output $ / M tokens	$1.60	$1
Results tracked	32	7

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
FrontierCode	10.2%	—
SciCode	45.5%	—
LiveBench Coding	—	35.1%
LMArena Coding	1473	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138), Sonar: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
OSWorld 2.0	2.8%	—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
NYT Connections (extended)	74.8%	—
CritPt	9.1%	—
Chess Puzzles	24%	—
LiveBench Reasoning	—	46.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1460	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	17%	—
DTBench	84%	—
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	37.9%
LMCA	37.6%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	147.37	—
LiveBench	—	46.9%

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	34.4%	—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	93.3%	—
LiveBench Math	—	41.6%
LMArena Math	1466	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51), Sonar: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
GPQA Diamond	87.9%	—
LMArena Expert	1467	—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33), Sonar: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
LMArena Vision	1279	—
LMArena Document	1444	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38), Sonar: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
LMArena Non-English	1445	—
LMArena Chinese	1510	—
LMArena French	1473	—
LMArena German	1471	—
LMArena Japanese	1413	—
LMArena Korean	1415	—
LMArena Russian	1457	—
LMArena Spanish	1457	—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52), Sonar: 71.4 (#150)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	76.2%
LMArena Instruction Following	1440	—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65), Sonar: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
LMArena Longer Query	1455	—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Qwen3.7 Plus	Sonar
LMArena Text	1455	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1439	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1460	—
LiveBench Language	—	44.1%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.7 Plus better than Sonar?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Plus or Sonar?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Sonar lists at $1 and $1.

Is Qwen3.7 Plus or Sonar better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (36.6 vs 35.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.7 Plus and Sonar share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.7 Plus has 32 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.