Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.25/100
Margin
15.6pts
winning →
72.84/100
0 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 38 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
4
Qwen3.7 Max only
38
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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 57.25. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 11.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 18.8% to 41.4%.

Qwen3.7 Max is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 Gemini 2.5 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProΔQwen3.7 Max
MathGemini 2.5 Pro11.6Margin→ 85.5Qwen3.7 Max97.1
KnowledgeGemini 2.5 Pro27.4Margin→ 36.8Qwen3.7 Max64.2
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro63.8Margin→ 14.1Qwen3.7 Max77.9
AgenticGemini 2.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningGemini 2.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MultilingualGemini 2.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingGemini 2.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 2.5 ProB · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 18.8%B 41.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 22.6
    HLE: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 41.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 63.8%B 80.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 16.6
    SWE-bench Verified: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83%B 92.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 9.4
    GPQA: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 2.5 Pro21.19 sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 2.5 Pro1MQwen3.7 Max1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 7.1%30.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 54.1%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gert LabsSource 42.01%64.27%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 8.3%38.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 6651273Qwen3.7 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
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
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 63.8%80.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 0.40%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 33.3%66.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.8%48.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
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
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 66.0%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 2.6%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQASource 83%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
HLESource 18.8%41.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.8%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.4%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 21.1%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -14.3%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 39.0%30.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.4%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource —92.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 14.138%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 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
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.9%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11971293Qwen3.7 Max leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 48.7%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 18.8% and 41.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 27.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 63.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 11.6. Gemini 2.5 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Google Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.