GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) by OpenAI or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.7 Max scores 11.0 points higher (29.5 vs 18.5) but costs 119× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $19.2; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 18.5, and GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) when 18.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.5 | 29.5 | +59.5% Qwen3.7 Max is 59.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $19.16 | $2,277.12 | +11784.8% Qwen3.7 Max is 119× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.09s | 16.64s | +226.9% Qwen3.7 Max is 226.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning): 59.5% more intelligence, 11784.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 226.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- 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.
GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.7 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/gpt-6-luna-non-reasoning/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-non-reasoning/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill