Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Max live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.5% to 39.7%.
Overall, Qwen3.7 Plus averages 67.4% (#18 of 31) against 84.0% (#3 of 31) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (7.0s vs 18.0s per sample).
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 20, 2026Pricing updated August 24, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.7 Plus | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | — | multimodal |
| Release Date | — | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | — | 984K |
| Parameters | 2.4T total, ~95B active | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.320 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $1.28 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 67.4% | 84.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0008 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.01s | 18.02s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 60.1% $0.0013 | 77.1% $0.013 |
| Counting | 50.0% $0.0004 | 82.4% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0003 | 90.6% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 86.5% $0.0009 | 92.8% $0.0056 |
| Data Extraction | 83.5% $0.0004 | 87.6% $0.0029 |
| Reasoning (low) | 39.7% $0.0003 | 73.5% $0.0047 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.2% $0.0043 | 80.8% $0.011 |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Qwen3.8 Max: Overview
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.
For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#3 of 31) against 67.4% (#18 of 31) for Qwen3.7 Plus. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 73.5% against 39.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.0074. Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.0s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.