Confirm Action

Are you sure you want to proceed?

Qwen · mid

Is Qwen3.7 Max good?

Qwen3.7 Max places top-3 in 8 of 22 task areas we tested. It's strongest at content & brand and weakest at creative & comedy. It's a mid-priced option ($5/1M tokens).

Top-3 finishes
22/22
Task areas tested
$5.0
Per 1M tokens
Slow
Typical speed

Our take

Qwen: Qwen3.7 Max is a mid-tier model that we tested across 22 task areas. It performs best at Content & Brand, and is weakest at Research & Competitive Analysis.

Strengths

Clarity Concision Specificity Usefulness Structure Constraint adherence

Weak spots

Food quality Practical sequencing Timing accuracy Appropriate caveats Visual design Diagnoses real concern

How Qwen3.7 Max ranks, task by task

Rank is the position in each field; Rating is the absolute quality bar. A model can be rated "Excellent" yet sit mid-table when the whole field is strong — and vice-versa.

Task area Rank
Content & Brand #1 of 50
Landing Pages #1 of 56
RAG, Safety & Grounding #1 of 35
Structured Output #1 of 43
Translation & Localization #1 of 44
Product & Project Management #2 of 44
Presentations & Decks #3 of 44
Customer Support #3 of 43
Data & Analytics #7 of 69
Frontend & Landing Pages #10 of 93
AI Strategy #7 of 50
Coding #9 of 52
Investor & Pitch #10 of 50
Summarization & Meeting Notes #9 of 44
Sales #12 of 44
Knowledge & Docs #27 of 94
Executive Assistant #15 of 50
Chef / Home Cooking #20 of 50
Training & Education #19 of 44
Legal & HR #23 of 44
Research & Competitive Analysis #29 of 44
Creative & Comedy #39 of 44

Industry benchmarks

Standardized third-party scores, shown for context — these are independent of our real-task tests.

Artificial Analysis indices

46
Intelligence
66
Coding
30.6
Agentic

Design Arena — human preference (avg Elo 1303)

3d 1326 svg 1278 dataviz 1289 gamedev 1324 website 1304 asciiart 1262 uicomponent 1327 codecategories 1311

Headline vs. real-world

Qwen3.7 Max punches above its headline benchmarks — it ranks higher on our real-world tasks than its Intelligence Index would suggest.

Source: Artificial Analysis (artificialanalysis.ai) via OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings). (2026-06-29) · Source: Design Arena (www.designarena.ai) via OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings). (2026-06-29)

Like Qwen3.7 Max, but…

Similar

Cheaper

No clear alternative.

Smarter

Frequently asked

Is Qwen3.7 Max any good?

Qwen3.7 Max places top-3 in 8 of 22 task areas we benchmarked. It performs best at Content & Brand.

What is Qwen3.7 Max best at?

Its strongest task areas are Content & Brand, Landing Pages, Translation & Localization.

How we test & rank

Each model is scored on real tasks across 22 task areas by an LLM judge with deterministic checks. "Percentile" is this model's standing within each area's field; the cross-area figures are rank-based so quality and Elo scores are never mixed.

This page is Spring Prompt, running

We just did this for every model. Do it for your prompt.

The rankings above come from running real tasks through real models and scoring every output. Spring Prompt is that same engine — pointed at your prompt, your test cases, and your definition of good.

  • Generate test cases from your prompt — no eval set required to start.
  • Compare models side by side with quality, cost and latency in one matrix.
  • Optimise the winner until the scores say it's ready to ship.
Experiment · Cold outreach email

Prompt × model results

12 test cases · 3 evals
Claude Opus
GPT-5
Gemini
v1
7.1
6.8
7.4
v2
8.3
7.9
8.0
v3
9.2
8.6
8.4
Best combo: v3 × Claude Opus
9.2 quality · $0.004/run · 1.8s