Model comparison
o4-mini (high) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o4-mini (high) #118 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o4-mini (high) and Qwen3.7 Max share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to o4-mini (high); 58 to Qwen3.7 Max.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- o4-mini (high) only
- 2
- Qwen3.7 Max only
- 58
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o4-mini (high) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 49.98. 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 20.2.
Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o4-mini (high).
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.7 Max | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o4-mini (high)Not available | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o4-mini (high)161 tok/s | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o4-mini (high)21.94 s | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o4-mini (high)200K | Qwen3.7 Max1M | Qwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 64.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1568 | Not 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 38.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1273 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 64.27% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.7% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 908 | Not 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 |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 48.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 46.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 92.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 38.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 14.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 30.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 22.9% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.7 Max wins5 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1293 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o4-mini (high) or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 49.98.
Which is better for math, o4-mini (high) or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 20.2. o4-mini (high) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.