AlibabaChina· released Jun 2026

Qwen3.7 Plus

Name: Qwen3.7 Plus
Author: Alibaba

Provisional: 9 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

58.4

Provisional: not enough comparable tests or counting categories to rank yet · 9 comparable tests · 0 counting categories

Drop any single test and the Index lands between 52.8 and 68.3.

Needs more results (1 of 8 so far)

Averaging 36.7 on the 1 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 Plus, in 9 results.

Its widest gap is on OSWorld 2.0, 91.1% behind the best published result. No comparable results yet in knowledge and long context. Between 40% and 50% behind the best published results, on average.

Strongest category

No category counts yet: a category counts once it has more than one comparable test and the model has taken at least half of them. The scores it has are below.

Best single result

Mock AIME 2024–2025

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

93.3%

93.3% of the best (100.0%) · #29 of 78.

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

Where it trails

OSWorld 2.0

Complete a multi-hour workflow across real desktop and web applications, end to end, with the environment changing as you work.

2.8%

91.1% behind the best published result (31.4%) · #9 of 9.

Computer use is how an agent reaches every tool that has no API, and long workflows are where agents lose the thread.

Not measured yet

No comparable result yet in these 2 categories. A blank is a blank, never a zero, and it does not lower the Index.

Knowledge
Long context

Covered, but not averaged into the Index:

Reasoning2 of 6 tests · needs 3 · mean 58.6
Coding2 of 7 tests · needs 4 · mean 46.2
Math2 of 5 tests · needs 3 · mean 65.0
Agentic1 of 8 tests · needs 4 · mean 8.9
Multimodalsingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 86.5
Human preferencesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 85.2

Every score, with its source

See it at work

What Qwen3.7 Plus 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.

Multimodal · mean 86.5 across 1 comparable test · a single-test category, shown beside the Index and never averaged into it

Vision ArenaLeaderboard

Answer prompts that include an image; real users vote blind between two models' answers.

1,266

43% expected win rate against the board leader (1,313)
#24 of 54

board 2026-08-27

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 Plus 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 Plus

provisional·Index 58.4C-

0 : 6

wins · 0 ties · 6 shared

GPT-6 Astra

#1·Index 99.0A+

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

Category means

Reasoning
58.6
99.6
Knowledge
—
100.0
Coding
46.2
97.7
Math
65.0
99.8
Agentic
8.9
98.5
Multimodal
86.5
—
Human preference
85.2
—

Shared tests · biggest gaps first

FrontierCodeCoding
10.2%
53.3%
−80.5
CritPtReasoning
9.1%
31.7%
−69.9
FrontierMath (Tiers 1–3)Math
34.4%
93.7%
−63.3
SciCodeCoding
45.5%
56.5%
−17.7
GPQA DiamondReasoning
87.9%
95.8%
−11.2
Mock AIME 2024–2025Math
93.3%
100.0%
−6.7

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

Reasoning58.6 · 2/6
Knowledge—
Coding46.2 · 2/7
Math65.0 · 2/5
Agentic8.9 · 1/8
Multimodalbeside86.5 · 1/1
Human preferencebeside85.2 · 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

87.9%

88.8% of the best (95.8%), above chance
48th percentile of 78 · n = 198

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

CritPtLeaderboardReasoning

9.1%

28.3% of the best (32.3%)
52th percentile of 78

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

SciCodeLeaderboardCoding

45.5%

73.3% of the best (62.0%)
42th percentile of 73 · n = 338

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub