Gemini 3.7 FlashvsQwen1.5
Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 72B |
Context window | 1M | 32k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 65.3% | — |
Agentic coding FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitA set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 43.6% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 3.0command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | 14.9% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 85.8% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)The re-checked edition of Humanity's Last Exam: the same extremely hard expert questions, minus the ones found to be flawed or wrongly answered. Scores on it run lower than on the original exam, so read the two as separate tests rather than a before-and-after. Higher is better. | 53.6% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · hardReal unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 43.5% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · human solvedReal biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 87.1% | — |
Biology LAB-Bench 2Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | 82.1% | — |
Agentic computer use OSWorld 2.0Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 38.1% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last ExamA hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 26.3% | — |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 30.4% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 90.7% | — |
Overall intelligence AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | 56 | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1525 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.5% | — |
Document comprehension GDP.PDFReal professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 34% | — |
Video understanding LVBenchCan the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 85.4% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 97% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 62.5% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1588 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Aug 13 2026 | Feb 4 2024 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen1.5?
Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen1.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen1.5 shipped 921 days before Gemini 3.7 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.7 Flash) vs 32k (Qwen1.5). Gemini 3.7 Flash is proprietary, while Qwen1.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen1.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.7 Flash was released by Google on Aug 13 2026.
Qwen1.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 4 2024.
Gemini 3.7 Flash has a 1M context window; Qwen1.5 has 32k.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. Qwen1.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.7 FlashvsClaude Opus 5Qwen1.5vsClaude Opus 5Gemini 3.7 FlashvsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen1.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberGemini 3.7 FlashvsMuse GlimmerQwen1.5vsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.7 FlashvsGrok 4.6Qwen1.5vsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.7 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen1.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.7 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen1.5vsMistral Medium 3.5