Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.7

What I tested — same prompt, two models

I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Fugu Ultra and Qwen 3.7, side by side, on 42 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.

Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.

Fugu Ultra · Dispatched from Agent OS as the panel-ensemble alternative to OpenRouter Fusion. Bench scored by Claude judge against the same 42 prompts as every other model.

Qwen 3.7 · Wired alongside GLM-5.2 in Agent OS for open-weights agent loops where you want vendor diversity.

Where Fugu Ultra beat Qwen 3.7

The tasks where I gave Fugu Ultra a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.

Where Qwen 3.7 beat Fugu Ultra

The tasks where I gave Qwen 3.7 a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.

Strengths & weaknesses I logged

Pricing & context — the spec sheet

The verdict — which should you pick?

Across 42 scored shared tasks, Fugu Ultra averaged 7.94/10, beating Qwen 3.7's 6.93/10 by 1.01 points. Pick Fugu Ultra when the build has to ship on the first prompt and you can afford the trade-offs in the comparison below.

If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Fugu Ultra and Qwen 3.7 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — teams that want fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile → Fugu Ultra, open-weights alternative to glm-5.2 when you want a different model family → Qwen 3.7. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.

FAQ — Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.7

Which is better, Fugu Ultra or Qwen 3.7?

On Goldie Bench, Fugu Ultra averages 7.94/10 across the shared tasks, with 5 gold, 2 silver, 2 bronze overall. Qwen 3.7 averages 6.93/10, with 0 gold, 0 silver, 0 bronze. Fugu Ultra wins the head-to-head 34–6.

How much does Fugu Ultra cost vs Qwen 3.7?

Fugu Ultra: Sakana's multi-agent orchestration: a single API call internally dispatches to multiple frontier models and synthesises the answer. Subscription plans run $20-$200/mo (Standard / Pro / Max); PAYG is $5/M input + $30/M output for Fugu Ultra. Direct competitor to OpenRouter Fusion's panel approach. Qwen 3.7: Alibaba's open-weights release — downloadable from Hugging Face, runnable locally or via Alibaba Cloud's free tier for individuals.

What's the context window for Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.7?

Fugu Ultra has a 272,000 tokens with the standard rate. Calls exceeding 272K context are billed at the higher 'long-context' rates. context window. Qwen 3.7 has a 256,000 tokens context window.

When should I pick Fugu Ultra over Qwen 3.7?

Pick Fugu Ultra for: Teams that want Fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile; Operators avoiding export-controlled providers (Sakana emphasises this in their pitch); Deep-research workflows where ensemble verdicts beat single-model answers. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Panel orchestration adds latency — even a 'pong' burns ~2k orchestration tokens; Newer than Fusion; less community calibration on long-tail prompts.

When should I pick Qwen 3.7 over Fugu Ultra?

Pick Qwen 3.7 for: Open-weights alternative to GLM-5.2 when you want a different model family; Multilingual workloads (Chinese, multi-script content); Fluid and particle simulations. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Only 5 tasks scored on the bench so far — small sample size; Trails GLM-5.2 on cinematic visual builds at similar pricing.

How does Goldie Bench score Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.7?

Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.

Related comparisons

Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:

Full model pages: Fugu Ultra · Qwen 3.7 · back to the leaderboard