Model comparison
Qwen3.6 Plus vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 60.3% for Qwen3.6 Plus and 74.8% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $3 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
Side by side
| Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2026-03-31 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 37 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40.7% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1467 | 1473 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1461 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 670.15 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,115 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.3% | 74.8% |
| CritPt | 2.9% | 9.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1449 | 1460 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | 17% |
| DTBench | 81.9% | 84% |
| LMCA | 33.1% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 147.65 | 147.37 |
| Thematic Generalization | 59.5% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 38.2% | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 26.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 88.4% | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | 1467 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 44.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1424 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1455 | 1473 |
| LMArena German | 1452 | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1389 | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | 1379 | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1432 | 1457 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1425 | 1440 |
Long Context Too close to call
Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1439 | 1455 |
| CL-bench | 20.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1404 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.6 Plus better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 1.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 Plus or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus lists at $0.50 and $3.
Is Qwen3.6 Plus or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.6 Plus and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.6 Plus has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.