Model comparison
Agents-A1 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Agents-A1 unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Agents-A1 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 3 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Agents-A1; 66 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Agents-A1 only
- 3
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 66
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Agents-A1 makes more sense if instruction following is the priority; Qwen3.7 Plus is the better fit if reasoning is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Agents-A1 and Qwen3.7 Plus finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Agents-A1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Agents-A1 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | Agents-A160.2 | Margin→ 31.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Knowledge | Agents-A147.6 | Margin→ 12.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Inst. Following | Agents-A194.8 | Margin← 10.3 | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
| Agentic | Agents-A175.5 | Margin← 3.8 | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Coding | Agents-A1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Math | Agents-A1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Multilingual | Agents-A1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Multimodal | Agents-A1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Agents-A1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Agents-A1Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Agents-A1Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Agents-A1Not available | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Agents-A1262K | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Qwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticAgents-A1 wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Agents-A1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseCompSource | 75.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 47.6% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 38.8% | 45.6% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.7% | Not comparable |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 73.3% | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 22.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 936 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Agents-A1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 51.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 45.5% | Not comparable |
ReasoningQwen3.7 Plus wins4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Agents-A1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 47.6% | 34.7% | Agents-A1 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 39.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 90.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 33.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 22.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 25.5% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Agents-A1 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMSearch-PlusSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 80.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1288 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Agents-A1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Agents-A1 and Qwen3.7 Plus are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Agents-A1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 47.6. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Agents-A1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 91.7 versus 60.2. Agents-A1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Agents-A1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Agents-A1 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.5 versus 71.7. Inside this category, VITA-Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Agents-A1 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Agents-A1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 94.8 versus 84.5. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.