Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Inkling vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Inkling
Thinking Machines Lab
67.54/100
Margin
0.3pts
← winning
67.22/100
1 category wins5 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Inkling #20 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Inkling and Qwen3.7 Plus share 25 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Inkling; 44 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
25
Inkling only
7
Qwen3.7 Plus only
44
Comparable categories
6 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 6 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Inkling has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.54 versus 67.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 92.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 46% to 34.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.7 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while Inkling 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 Inkling and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryInklingΔQwen3.7 Plus
KnowledgeInkling51.6Margin→ 8.5Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
CodingInkling68.6Margin→ 7.0Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
MultimodalInkling76.5Margin→ 5.0Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingInkling79.8Margin→ 4.7Qwen3.7 Plus84.5
MathInkling97.1Margin← 4.2Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticInkling69.4Margin→ 2.3Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
ReasoningInklingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualInklingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · InklingB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 46%B 34.7%
    Winner: InklingΔ 11.3
    HLE: Inkling scored 46%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.8%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Inkling scored 63.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 73.5%B 79%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.5
    MMMU-Pro: Inkling scored 73.5%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 85.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.9
    CharXiv: Inkling scored 82%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 54.3%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Inkling scored 54.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricInklingQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondInklingNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenInklingNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensInkling1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 77.1%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%73.2%Inkling leads
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1257—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 32.3%20.8%Inkling leads
GDPval-AASource 36.9%21.8%Inkling leads
GDPval-AASource 1239936Inkling leads
AA BriefcaseSource 836—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 23.7%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%77.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Coding IndexSource 52.1%55.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 46.1%45.5%Inkling leads
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 63.3%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 5.4%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 87.9%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource 87.9%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 46%34.7%Inkling leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.7%39.0%Inkling leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 87.2%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 29.7%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 2.1%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.0%22.2%Inkling leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 63.1%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathInkling wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
AIME26Source 97.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%79%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CharXivSource 82%85.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 73.5%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MathVisionSource —90.3%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
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. FollowingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkInklingQwen3.7 PlusResult
IFBenchSource 79.8%79.1%Inkling leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (7)

Which is better, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.54 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 46% and 34.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 51.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 68.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 92.9. Qwen3.7 Plus stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 69.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 76.5. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Inkling or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 84.5 versus 79.8. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Thinking Machines Lab 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.