Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 29 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.95/100
Margin
13.3pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and Qwen3.7 Plus share 29 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 40 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
29
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
9
Qwen3.7 Plus only
40
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 29 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 53.95. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 71.7 against 55.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 56.6% to 70.3%.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)ΔQwen3.7 Plus
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3Margin→ 16.4Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1Margin→ 8.0Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5Margin→ 7.1Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9Margin→ 1.0Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 56.6%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 13.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 56.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.3%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.3
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 52.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 29.4%B 34.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 5.3
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 29.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.4%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 2.9
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 87.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 86.4%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 2.1
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 86.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 53.5%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 40.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 67.4%73.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.6%93%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 28.2%20.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 32.4%21.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 1147936DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
CodeforcesSource 2816.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 78.6%77.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.3%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE MultilingualSource 70.2%75.8%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.6%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.0%45.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Coding IndexSource 52.0%55.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MRCR 1MSource 76.9%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 59.3%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 62.7%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 3.4%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.4%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SimpleQASource 28.9%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 73.2%—Not comparable
GPQASource 87.4%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource 87.4%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 29.4%34.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.5%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.7%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 27.8%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.3%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 35.5%22.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 89.7%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 91.9%92.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 85.1%86.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ApexSource 19.1%22.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Apex ShortlistSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12381288Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 73.5%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 53.95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 56.6% and 70.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 52.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 68.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 91.9. Inside this category, Apex is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 55.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.