Skip to main content

Model comparison

Exaone 4.0 32B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

LG AI Research
40.44/100
Margin
32.4pts
winning →
72.84/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.7 Max share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Exaone 4.0 32B; 46 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Exaone 4.0 32B only
1
Qwen3.7 Max only
46
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 40.44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.

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 scores and score margins for Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryExaone 4.0 32BΔQwen3.7 Max
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B81.8Margin 17.6Qwen3.7 Max64.2
AgenticExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max77.9
ReasoningExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MathExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Exaone 4.0 32BB · Qwen3.7 Max
  1. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 81.8%B 89.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 7.8
    MMLU-Pro: Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 89.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensExaone 4.0 32BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondExaone 4.0 32BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenExaone 4.0 32BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensExaone 4.0 32B128KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 4.1%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source 75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 53.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 38.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1273Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.7%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 83.4%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-SciCodeSource 25.2%48.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.4%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 60.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource 91.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 66.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 8.0%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 0.0%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source 90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProSource 81.8%89.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 6.0%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 62.8%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 4.9%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -62.3%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 10.4%30.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 81.0%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.4%Not comparable
HLESource 41.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 90.3%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AIME 2025Source 85.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource 44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource 87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource 86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource 89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource 86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1293Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 33.5%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource 94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Exaone 4.0 32B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 40.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 81.8% and 89.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Exaone 4.0 32B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 64.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.