Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.7 Max scores 23.2 points higher (29.5 vs 6.3) but costs 38× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $60.0; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 29.5 | +368.3% Qwen3.7 Max is 4.7× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $2,277.12 | +3695.8% Qwen3.7 Max is 38× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 16.57s | +1804.6% Qwen3.7 Max is 1804.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs Celeris-1: 368.3% more intelligence, 3695.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 1804.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Celeris-1Qwen3.7 MaxToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill