Compare AI models
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $2.50 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $7.50 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.042Darkbloom | $1.475Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.22Darkbloom | $4.425Alibaba |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 25% | 72% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 60.6% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 80.4% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 91.6% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.7% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 76.4% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 41.4% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 92.4% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Apr 2 2026 | May 20 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemma 4vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.7-MaxvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemma 4vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.7-MaxvsGPT-6.1 SolGemma 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.7-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.3Gemma 4vsGrok 4.7Qwen3.7-MaxvsGrok 4.7Gemma 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.7-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemma 4vsMistral Large 4Qwen3.7-MaxvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.7-Max leads Gemma 4 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only Qwen3.7-Max has a verified first-party API price: $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemma 4. Gemma 4 shipped 48 days before Qwen3.7-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemma 4 is open weight, while Qwen3.7-Max is closed.
On BullshitBench v2, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 72% vs Gemma 4 at 25%.