Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max
Model Markets Rankings
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
| Ranking | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #22 of 36$0.161 per LiveBench case | #12 of 36$0.057 per LiveBench case |
Ranks come from the current complete eligible cohorts. Green highlights appear only when both models are ranked in the same metric. Missing required inputs remain unranked, and the three dimensions are not collapsed into an overall winner.
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-08-31-011508720696 · outcome_score · statistical tie | -3.1398% of row best · score · Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview; 95% CI [-4.00806078, -2.24630473]; sessions 83248; observations 2709356; rank 40 | -1.36100% of row best · score · Qwen3.7 Max; 95% CI [-2.27613811, -0.44192410]; sessions 35069; observations 1551158; rank 35 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 81.66100% of row best · percent · gemini-3.1-pro-preview-high · 13,380 output tokens / case | 77.5095% of row best · percent · qwen3.7-max · 12,909 output tokens / case |
| ToneBench2026-08-28-10-task-cd9819ab6e4d · overall_score · leader | 79.8998% of row best · points · Gemini 3.1 Pro (high thinking) · 10,009 output tokens / case | 81.26100% of row best · points · Qwen3.7 Max (default) · 8,636 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie | 1 benchmark winTied overall | 1 benchmark winTied overall |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Qwen |
| Family | Gemini 3 | Qwen3 7 |
| Model | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
| Version | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen3.7 Max |
| Lifecycle | preview | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-05-20 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
13 comparable fields · 9 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Gemini 3.1 Pro Capabilities
Qwen3.7 Max Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Max FAQs
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.00 and Qwen3.7 Max is $1.475 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 3.1 Pro is $12.00 and Qwen3.7 Max is $4.425 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 3.1 Pro supports 1,049K and Qwen3.7 Max supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.
Can Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Gemini 3.1 Pro is not marked open weight; Qwen3.7 Max is not marked open weight.
Can Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max understand images?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro is documented with image input; Qwen3.7 Max is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 3.1 Pro is 66K and Qwen3.7 Max is 66K.
Do Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.7 Max support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.7 Max: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?+
Gemini 3.1 Pro has 2 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.7 Max has 4, so Qwen3.7 Max has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.7 Max?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.