# o1 vs Qwen3.7 Max

> Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen3-7-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 21

## Summary

- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 7 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 14.7% for o1 and 64.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper at $2.50 / $7.50 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 51.5 |
| Rank | 143 | 42 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $7.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.6 (#117)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | 70.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 19% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | 153.68 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 36.1 (#175)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 64.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- o1: 41.5 (#110)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1488 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen3.7 Max: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1460 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1482 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1481 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1 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; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is o1 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 46.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.