Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max
Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max share 26 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Pro; 32 to Qwen3.7 Max.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 26
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 21
- Qwen3.7 Max only
- 32
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 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 26 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 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 55.3. 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 31.8.
Qwen3.7 Max is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 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 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Δ | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 | Margin→ 65.3 | Qwen3.7 Max97.1 |
| Reasoning | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 | Margin→ 13.3 | Qwen3.7 Max90.4 |
| Agentic | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max69.7 |
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max77.9 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max64.2 |
| Multilingual | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max87.0 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 MaxNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max84.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Qwen3.7 Max1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | 65.2% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 94.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 21.4% | 30.6% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 32.0% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 23.3% | 38.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 965 | 1273 | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 56.87% | 64.27% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 13.3% | 18.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 37.5% | 25.6% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 42.2% | 45.0% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 58.9% | 83.4% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA ITBenchSource | 30.3% | 42.5% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 16.5% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 53.8% | 50.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 73.8% | 74.5% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 64.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1568 | 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 BriefcaseSource | — | 908 | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 82.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 32.03% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 68.8% | 66.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 58.9% | 48.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro 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 |
ReasoningQwen3.7 Max wins4 benchmarks
Knowledge16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA-DSource | 94.3% | 92.4% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 45.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 46.5% | 46.0% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 94.1% | 92.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.7% | 38.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 32.9% | 14.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 55.3% | 30.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 49.9% | 22.9% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 41.4% | 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 wins5 benchmarks
Multilingual6 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 83.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 80.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | 72.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | 29.0% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 81.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 82.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1281 | 1293 | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 55.3.
Which is better for math, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for reasoning, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 77.1. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.