Skip to main content

Model comparison

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No comparison
72.84/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Max share 21 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; 37 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
21
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
4
Qwen3.7 Max only
37
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Qwen3.7 Max is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 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

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Max 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 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.

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 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryMistral Medium 3.5 128BΔQwen3.7 Max
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6Margin 0.3Qwen3.7 Max77.9
AgenticMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
KnowledgeMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max64.2
MathMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Mistral Medium 3.5 128BB · Qwen3.7 Max
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.6%B 80.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 2.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMistral Medium 3.5 128BNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMistral Medium 3.5 128B256KQwen3.7 Max1MQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
τ³-bench resultsSource 91.4%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 19.0%30.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 21.4%38.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 9291273Qwen3.7 Max leads
Gert LabsSource 39.10%64.27%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA BriefcaseSource 506908Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 33.7%45.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Harvey LABSource 69.1%83.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Tau3 BankingSource 14.4%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 33.3%50.8%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
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.7%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 25.6%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 42.5%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 74.5%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.6%80.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Coding IndexSource 46.9%66.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-SciCodeSource 39.6%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
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 61.0%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 0.0%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source 90.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 29.9%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 74.8%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 12.8%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -36.3%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 25.1%30.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 82.0%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Openness IndexSource 33.3%Not comparable
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 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
Math
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource 44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 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
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 64.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1293Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 68.8%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource 94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Max 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 coding, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 77.6. Inside this category, AA Coding 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.