Compare/Qwen3.7 Max vs Jamba 1.5 Large

Qwen3.7 MaxvsJamba 1.5 Large

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Alibaba

Qwen3.7 Max

Input
$2.5/M
Output
$7.5/M
Speed
212 tok/s
TTFT
2.24s
AI21 Labs

Jamba 1.5 Large

Input
$2/M
Output
$8/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Jamba 1.5 Large
Faster (tok/s)
Qwen3.7 Max
Lower Latency
Qwen3.7 Max
Benchmarks (2-0)
Qwen3.7 Max

Pricing Comparison

MetricQwen3.7 MaxJamba 1.5 Large
Input ($/M tokens)$2.5$2
Output ($/M tokens)$7.5$8
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Qwen3.7 Max$3.25
Jamba 1.5 Large$2.80

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Qwen3.7 Max
212 tok/s
Jamba 1.5 Large
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Qwen3.7 Max
2.24s
Jamba 1.5 Large

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.7 Max wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.9× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.7 Max is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.7 Max makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Qwen3.7 Max is strongest on Coding Index (66.0), Intelligence Index (46.7). Jamba 1.5 Large leads on Intelligence Index (4.8).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Alibaba and AI21 Labs sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while AI21 Labs often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Qwen3.7 Max costs $187.50 ($2250/year); Jamba 1.5 Large costs $180.00 ($2160/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.7 Max ≈ $27.50/run, Jamba 1.5 Large ≈ $26.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.7 Max ≈ $1250/run, Jamba 1.5 Large ≈ $1200/run. Jamba 1.5 Large becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
46.74.8
Coding Index
66.0
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Qwen3.7 Max2 wins
0 winsJamba 1.5 Large

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7 Max or Jamba 1.5 Large?

Jamba 1.5 Large is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $3.50/M tokens vs $3.75/M for Qwen3.7 Max.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Qwen3.7 Max wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Jamba 1.5 Large. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Qwen3.7 Max generates tokens faster at 212 tok/s vs — tok/s. Qwen3.7 Max also has lower time-to-first-token (2.24s vs —s).

When should I use Qwen3.7 Max vs Jamba 1.5 Large?

Choose based on your priorities: Jamba 1.5 Large for lower cost, Qwen3.7 Max for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.7 Max for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.