AlibabaChina· released May 2026

Qwen3.7 Max

Name: Qwen3.7 Max
Author: Alibaba

Provisional: 12 comparable tests so far. Ranked once it reaches 6 across 3 counting categories.

Alibaba, China. One of 19 models from this lab on the Index.

Third-party publishedLow confidence (thin coverage)

Snapshot September 8, 2026

OpenCharts Index

65.0

Provisional: not enough comparable tests or counting categories to rank yet · 12 comparable tests · 2 counting categories

Drop any single test and the Index lands between 56.4 and 70.1.

Needs more results (3 of 8 so far)

Averaging 65.5 on the 3 it has; the score opens at 4 of 8.

Distance to today's frontier on the hardest tests. Not a measure of intelligence.

What it's known for

Qwen3.7 Max, in 12 results.

Strongest in reasoning (73.6) and math (56.4). It trails the frontier most in math, 43.6% behind on average. No comparable results yet in agentic, multimodal and long context. Between 30% and 35% behind the best published results, on average.

Strongest category

Reasoning

Hard, novel problems: graduate science, abstract puzzles, expert exams.

73.6

GPQA Diamond90.9% · 93% of best
SimpleBench70.4% · 86% of best
CritPt13.4% · 42% of best

Mean of 3 of the category's 6 comparable tests. Counts toward the Index.

Best single result

Mock AIME 2024–2025

Solve competition mathematics problems that have a single exact integer answer.

95.6%

95.6% of the best (100.0%) · #19 of 78.

Olympiad-style problems need long, careful chains of reasoning, and there is no partial credit.

Where it trails

ProofBench

Write a complete, rigorous proof, graded for rigor rather than for a final answer.

26.0%

74.0% behind the best published result (100.0%) · #30 of 61.

A proof shows the reasoning itself. A right answer with a wrong argument scores nothing.

Not measured yet

No comparable result yet in these 3 categories. A blank is a blank, never a zero, and it does not lower the Index.

Agentic
Multimodal
Long context

Covered, but not averaged into the Index:

Knowledgesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 73.8
Coding3 of 7 tests · needs 4 · mean 68.2
Human preferencesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 90.4

Every score, with its source

See it at work

What Qwen3.7 Max was asked to do, and how it did.

Every test it has taken, by category, with the kind of task it faced, who produced the number and where the result landed against the best published one. The examples are original and illustrative, never items from the datasets themselves.

Human preference · mean 90.4 across 1 comparable test · a single-test category, shown beside the Index and never averaged into it

Text ArenaLeaderboard

Answer the same prompt as a rival model; real users vote blind on which answer they prefer.

1,474

45% expected win rate against the board leader (1,507)
#24 of 92

max-preview · board 2026-09-02

Source: Arena

Every result is read against the best published one on its test: percent scores as a share of the best above chance, Arena ratings as the expected win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. Sitting a harder exam never lowers a model. Every number links to the publisher that produced it.

Head to head

Qwen3.7 Max against whoever you pick.

Choose a rival. Every counted test both have taken appears side by side as a share of the best published result on that test, with the category means above. A win is a higher share; a gap under 2 points is a tie, because one item on a 45-problem exam is 2.2 points and publishers' own standard errors are of that order.

Qwen3.7 Max

provisional·Index 65.0C+

0 : 9

wins · 0 ties · 9 shared

GPT-6 Astra

#1·Index 99.0A+

GPT-6 Astra comes out ahead on 9 of the 9 tests both have taken.

Category means

Reasoning
73.6
99.6
Knowledge
73.8
100.0
Coding
68.2
97.7
Math
56.4
99.8
Agentic
—
98.5
Human preference
90.4
—

Shared tests · biggest gaps first

ProofBenchMath
26.0%
99.0%
−73.0
Code Arena (WebDev)Coding
1,517
1,797
−66.7
FrontierMath Tier 4Math
34.1%
97.6%
−65.0
CritPtReasoning
13.4%
31.7%
−56.6
FrontierMath (Tiers 1–3)Math
64.6%
93.7%
−31.1
SimpleQA VerifiedKnowledge
55.8%
75.6%
−26.2
SciCodeCoding
48.8%
56.5%
−12.3
GPQA DiamondReasoning
90.9%
95.8%
−6.9
Mock AIME 2024–2025Math
95.6%
100.0%
−4.4

Bars are distances to the best published result on each test (percent scores above chance, Arena ratings as win rate against the leader, open-ended values on a log scale). Raw values as the publishers report them.

Open GPT-6 Astra

Scores

Every test, every source

The best published run per benchmark, the raw value as the publisher reports it, who produced the number, how close it comes to the best published result on that test, and where the model sits among every model scored on it. Percent scores are read above chance, Arena ratings as a win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. A test with too few models to compare against is shown but not counted.

Category means

Reasoning73.6 · 3/6
Knowledgebeside73.8 · 1/1
Coding68.2 · 3/7
Math56.4 · 4/5
Agentic—
Multimodal—
Human preferencebeside90.4 · 1/1
Long context—

Mean · tests taken of the category's comparable tests. A faded category either rests on fewer than half of them or is a single-test category (marked “beside”), which is shown next to the Index and never averaged into it.

GPQA DiamondEpoch-runReasoning

90.9%

93.1% of the best (95.8%), above chance
70th percentile of 78 · n = 198

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

SimpleBenchLeaderboardReasoning

70.4%

86.0% of the best (81.9%)
78th percentile of 46

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

CritPtLeaderboardReasoning

13.4%