Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)Qwen3.7-MaxVSGoogleGemini 3.1 Pro
Our Take
We recommend choosing Qwen3.7-Max as it delivers superior coding capability while matching the reasoning accuracy of Gemini 3.1 Pro at a 1.2x API cost saving. Choose Qwen3.7-Max for superior overall value and coding efficiency.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Qwen3.7-Max scored 60.6%, while Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 54.2%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Qwen3.7-Max scored 92.4%, while Gemini 3.1 Pro scored 94.3%.
Cost Efficiency: Gemini 3.1 Pro pricing ($2/M input, $12/M output) is 1.2x cheaper than Qwen3.7-Max ($2.5/M input, $7.5/M output).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+6.4%)
60.6%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
92.4%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.2x cheaper
$3.75Input: $2.50 | Output: $7.50Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
54.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.9%)
94.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$4.50Input: $2.00 | Output: $12.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Qwen3.7-Max vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Qwen3.7-Max is cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro. Qwen3.7-Max has a blended cost of $3.75/1M tokens, which is about 1.2x cheaper than Gemini 3.1 Pro at $4.50/1M tokens.
Qwen3.7-Max is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 60.6% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Gemini 3.1 Pro which scores 54.2%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Qwen3.7-Max and Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.