Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Qwen3.7 Plus on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 25.2, and Qwen3.7 Plus costs 4.7x less per output token ($1.28 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

Qwen3.7 PlusQwen
Coding
33.2
Overall
54.0
Output $/M
$1.28
0
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$6.00
7
vs boards won of 7 shared

Qwen3.7 Plus or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: which to pick

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.

Shared results
7
Qwen3.7 Plus only
68
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
2
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Qwen3.7 Plus 33.2 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 32.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Agentic Index: Qwen3.7 Plus 17.5 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 50.1, 32.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Qwen3.7 Plus $1.28 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 per million output tokens, 4.7x apart.
Context window
Qwen3.7 Plus takes 1M tokens, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryQwen3.7 PlusBarsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General01
All shared boards07
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Coding Index55.971.9Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)46.4%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Code migration (Vals AI)12.9%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)52.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)54.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
SciCode46.1%54.1%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)47.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
FrontierCode10.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: coding1473Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1473Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Intelligence Index25.239.9Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Epoch Capabilities Index147.0Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
AA Agentic Index17.550.1Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Finance Agent (Vals AI)38.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)10.5%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)16.4%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)49.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
τ²-Bench Telecom93.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
OSWorld 2.02.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
MCP AtlasNot measured84.5%Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)90.0%93.5%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)35.6%42.4%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.9%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Mystery game puzzles17.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1460Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: expert1466Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1460Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1292Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: homework1295Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
OTIS Mock AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 334.4%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: math1467Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1470Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
MathArenaNot measured31.6%Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
MortgageTax (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: science1464Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1464Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1451Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1435Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
Design Arena: websites1269Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: UI components1258Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: game dev1262Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: data viz1277Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: 3D1238Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: all code categories1268Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: SVG1207Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1143Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)39.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Vals Multimodal Index53.9%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
IFBench78.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)73.0%80.3%Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
DTBench84.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMCA37.6%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text1454Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1439Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1438Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision1278Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: English1458Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: non-English1445Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1509Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: German1471Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1412Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Korean1413Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: French1472Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1457Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Russian1457Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: Polish1449Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1459Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1454Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1437Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1422Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: English1280Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1332Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1288Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: humor1261Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1258Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
LMArena Document1444Not measuredOnly Qwen3.7 Plus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
BenchmarkQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Qwen3.7 Plus$0.0010Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.0050Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Qwen3.7 Plus$0.020Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.118Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Qwen3.7 Plus$0.077Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.460Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
SpecificationQwen3.7 PlusQwen3.8 2.4T A95B
MakerQwenQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJune 3, 2026August 12, 2026
Context window1M1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.32$2.00
Output $/Mtok$1.28$6.00
Coding index33.2Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Qwen3.7 Plus better than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for coding?

Only Qwen3.7 Plus has a coding score, 33.2 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for a larger context window (1.05M against 1M tokens) and work measured by AA Coding Index or SciCode, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Plus or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?

Qwen3.7 Plus costs $0.32 per million input tokens and $1.28 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.7 Plus or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.

How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.7 Plus's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next