Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No comparison
57.01/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Qwen3.5 397B share 25 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max); 30 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
25
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) only
20
Qwen3.5 397B only
30
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Qwen3.5 397B is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 25 shared benchmark results across 6 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

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Qwen3.5 397B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max). That is roughly 12.9x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.

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 (Max) and Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)ΔQwen3.5 397B
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)63.8Margin 7.3Qwen3.5 397B56.5
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)94.8Margin 4.2Qwen3.5 397B90.6
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)68.8Margin 2.3Qwen3.5 397B66.5
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)55.3Margin 1.3Qwen3.5 397B56.6
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B63.2
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B84.7
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B79.6
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B92.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)B · Qwen3.5 397B
  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 73.2%B 62%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 11.2
    BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 73.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.
  2. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 94.8%B 87.9%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 6.9
    HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 94.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 87.9%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.
  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.8%B 28.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 6.1
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 34.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.
  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 56.9%B 52.5%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 4.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 56.9%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.
  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79%B 76.2%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 2.8
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 79%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not availableQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not availableQwen3.5 397B2.44 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)1MQwen3.5 397B128KDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.9%52.5%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
BrowseCompSource 73.2%62%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 45.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 69%46.1%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
GDPval-AASource 1189962DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
ToolathlonSource 47.8%36.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 31.1%19.9%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B leads
GDPval-AASource 34.4%23.1%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA BriefcaseSource 831Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 39.6%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 81.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 31.5%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 22.9%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 35.6%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 56.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 51.8%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 68.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 43.7%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 37.6%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 74.2%Not comparable
WideResearchSource 74.0%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 46.76%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 14.2%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 15.3%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
CodeforcesSource 3052.0Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79%76.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.6%50.9%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
SWE MultilingualSource 73.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 56.2%48.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 44.9%42.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 83.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
MRCR 1MSource 78.7%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 60.5%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 63.0%65.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
CritPtSource 7.1%1.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
LongBench v2Source 63.2%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 68.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.2%87.8%Qwen3.5 397B leads
SimpleQASource 34.1%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 78.9%Not comparable
GPQASource 88.1%88.4%Qwen3.5 397B leads
GPQA-DSource 88.1%Not comparable
HLESource 34.8%28.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.3%33.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 89.4%89.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-HLESource 32.1%27.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.9%-29.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 37.2%31.4%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 95.8%89.1%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA Openness IndexSource 50.0%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 94.9%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 93%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.8%87.9%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.4%Not comparable
ApexSource 33.0%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.7%Not comparable
AIME26Source 93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 94.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 92.7%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 80.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProXSource 84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 59.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1238Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 88.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource 80.8%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.7%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 65.6%Not comparable
V*Source 95.8%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 77.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.5 397BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 79.2%78.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
IFEvalSource 92.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.5 397B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Qwen3.5 397B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.6 versus 55.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.5 397B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.8 versus 66.5. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.5 397B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94.8 versus 90.6. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.5 397B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 56.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

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.