Qwen3.7 Max (high) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro (default)
Should you write with Qwen3.7 Max (high) or Gemini 3.1 Pro (default)? On this page the only thing that changes is the model. Both wrote their own version of the scripts behind 10 of my What's AI videos, five drafts per script, and three judges from three model families scored every draft blind, with my finished script as the reference. Qwen3.7 Max (high) leads overall, 80.8 to 80.1. Their per-model Elo intervals overlap on this board.
The verdict
On quality the board can't split these two, so I'd let price decide, and price says Qwen3.7 Max (high). It sits at #89 against #94 for Gemini 3.1 Pro (default), about 60 Elo apart, with overlapping ranges. Qwen's clearest lead is Length Adherence, three or four points; most other metrics are within a point or two. Gemini answers with a little more substance and a hair less slop. The real difference is cost: about $0.055 a script for Qwen against $0.143 for Gemini, well under half. Neither publishes open weights. Gemini is a little quicker, around a minute and a quarter against under two, so if factual depth and turnaround matter more than the bill, it has a case.
Pick Qwen3.7 Max (high) when you want similar quality for well under half the price.
Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro (default) when factual depth matters most and you want a slightly faster turnaround.
How to read these numbers
Overall vs Elo. Overall is the weighted rubric score. Elo compares each model's five-draft average with every other model's, script by script, and counts gaps inside run-to-run noise as draws, so it rewards winning often and can disagree with overall. My own scripts score 90.9 on the same rubric, not a literal 100. Right now 2 of 167 ranked configurations reach it. A model above that line writes at that level on this rubric. That's not the same as beating my script line for line.
Reading the Elo intervals. Each 95% range comes from resampling every model's recorded run scores on each task and re-ranking. Comparing these separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between two models: far apart is strong evidence, and overlap isn't a tie. The tasks stay fixed, so the ranges say nothing about new tasks (the long version).
Metric by metric: where the gap comes from
Blue is Qwen3.7 Max (high), orange is Gemini 3.1 Pro (default), and the solid bar takes the metric. The weight under each name is how much it counts toward the overall. Weighted by how much each metric counts, Length Adherence does the most to put Qwen3.7 Max (high) ahead: it leads there by 3.6 points. If you care about one thing, say voice or length, go straight to that row.
Cost, speed, and consistency
Quality is half the decision. The other half is what each script costs you, how long you wait, and how often you get a bad draft. Qwen3.7 Max (high) is ahead and it's also the cheaper one: Gemini 3.1 Pro (default) costs about 2.6x as much per script.
| Qwen3.7 Max (high) | Gemini 3.1 Pro (default) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 80.8 | 80.1 |
| Writing Elo | 1525 | 1465 |
| Score spread across drafts (± overall std) | 2.190 | 2.580 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 0.055 | 0.143 |
| Avg time per script (min) | 1.7 | 1.3 |
| Open weights | No | No |
Green wins the row, and for spread, cost and time, lower wins. Cost is one script at recorded list prices, uncached and without judging, so your real bill will differ. Spread is how much the overall score moves across a model's drafts, and time is the average time to get one accepted script, retries included.
Want the script-by-script detail? Full scorecards: Qwen3.7 Max (high) · Gemini 3.1 Pro (default). The whole scoring pipeline is on the methodology page.
← All comparisons