Model comparison

Qwen3.7 Max vs Sonar

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index. Sonar costs 3.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Sonar Perplexity

38.5

Rank #187 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 33.7.
  • Sonar is cheaper at $1 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Qwen3.7 Max and Sonar specifications
Qwen3.7 MaxSonar
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Perplexity
Noometry Index51.538.5
Released2026-05-192024-01-01
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M128K
Max output131K4K
Input $ / M tokens$2.50$1
Output $ / M tokens$7.50$1
Results tracked337

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
SWE-bench Verified77.3%—
LMArena WebDev1515—
SciCode48.8%—
LiveBench Coding—35.1%
LMArena Coding1498—
ALE-Bench1,189—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135), Sonar: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
GBAEval0.4%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
SimpleBench70.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)85.1%—
CritPt13.4%—
Chess Puzzles19%—
EBR-Bench9.5%—
LiveBench Reasoning—46.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1483—
Mystery Game Puzzles32%—
DTBench92.3%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—37.9%
LMCA44%—
Epoch Capabilities Index153.68—
LiveBench—46.9%

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)64.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 434.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%—
ProofBench26%—
LiveBench Math—41.6%
LMArena Math1490—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28), Sonar: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
GPQA Diamond90.9%—
SimpleQA Verified55.8%—
LMArena Expert1488—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15), Sonar: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
LMArena Non-English1474—
LMArena Chinese1530—
LMArena Russian1484—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38), Sonar: 71.4 (#150)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
LiveBench Instruction Following—76.2%
LMArena Instruction Following1460—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40), Sonar: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.7 MaxSonar
LMArena Text1476—
LMArena Creative Writing1449—
EQ-Bench 41110—
LMArena Multi-Turn1481—
LiveBench Language—44.1%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.7 Max better than Sonar?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index. Sonar costs 3.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Max or Sonar?

Sonar is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

Is Qwen3.7 Max or Sonar better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 35.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.7 Max and Sonar share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.7 Max has 33 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper