Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Qwen3.7 Max vs ZAYA1-8B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 9 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

72.84/100
No comparison
ZAYA1-8B
Zyphra
N/A
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported); ZAYA1-8B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Qwen3.7 Max and ZAYA1-8B share 9 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 49 results are unique to Qwen3.7 Max; 2 to ZAYA1-8B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
9
Qwen3.7 Max only
49
ZAYA1-8B only
2
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Qwen3.7 Max makes more sense if instruction following is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; ZAYA1-8B is the better fit if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 9 shared benchmark results across 4 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 and ZAYA1-8B 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 131K for ZAYA1-8B.

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 Qwen3.7 Max and ZAYA1-8B
CategoryQwen3.7 MaxΔZAYA1-8B
Inst. FollowingQwen3.7 Max84.4Margin← 20.3ZAYA1-8B64.1
MathQwen3.7 Max97.1Margin← 16.7ZAYA1-8B80.4
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max64.2Margin→ 9.4ZAYA1-8B73.6
AgenticQwen3.7 Max69.7MarginNo overlapZAYA1-8BNot measured
CodingQwen3.7 Max77.9MarginNo overlapZAYA1-8BNot measured
ReasoningQwen3.7 Max90.4MarginNo overlapZAYA1-8BNot measured
MultilingualQwen3.7 Max87.0MarginNo overlapZAYA1-8BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Qwen3.7 MaxB · ZAYA1-8B

  1. IFBench

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 79.1%B 52.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 26.5
    IFBench: Qwen3.7 Max scored 79.1%; ZAYA1-8B scored 52.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 97.1%B 71.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 25.5
    HMMT Feb 2026: Qwen3.7 Max scored 97.1%; ZAYA1-8B scored 71.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 92.4%B 71%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 21.4
    GPQA: Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%; ZAYA1-8B scored 71%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  4. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.6%B 74.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 15.4
    MMLU-Pro: Qwen3.7 Max scored 89.6%; ZAYA1-8B scored 74.2%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  5. IFEval

    Inst. Following
    Source ↗
    A 94.3%B 85.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 8.7
    IFEval: Qwen3.7 Max scored 94.3%; ZAYA1-8B scored 85.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensQwen3.7 MaxNot availableZAYA1-8B$0 input / $0 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondQwen3.7 MaxNot availableZAYA1-8BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenQwen3.7 MaxNot availableZAYA1-8BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensQwen3.7 Max1MZAYA1-8B131KQwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
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%39.2%Qwen3.7 Max leads
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
Coding
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
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
LiveCodeBench v6Source —65.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
MRCRv2Source 90.4%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 13.4%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.0%—Not comparable
KnowledgeZAYA1-8B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
GPQASource 92.4%71%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource 92.4%71.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
HLESource 41.4%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.6%74.2%Qwen3.7 Max leads
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 wins
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 97.1%71.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 90.0%59.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
ApexSource 44.5%32.2%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AIME26Source —89.1%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
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
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1293—Not comparable
Inst. FollowingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxZAYA1-8BResult
IFEvalSource 94.3%85.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFBenchSource 79.1%52.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-IFBenchSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Qwen3.7 Max or ZAYA1-8B?

Qwen3.7 Max and ZAYA1-8B 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 knowledge tasks, Qwen3.7 Max or ZAYA1-8B?

ZAYA1-8B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.6 versus 64.2. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Qwen3.7 Max or ZAYA1-8B?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 80.4. Inside this category, IMOAnswerBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Qwen3.7 Max or ZAYA1-8B?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 84.4 versus 64.1. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Alibaba 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.