Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) vs Qwen3.6-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
53.82/100
3 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Qwen3.6-27B share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max); 30 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
24
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) only
21
Qwen3.6-27B only
30
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) makes more sense if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Qwen3.6-27B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 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 Qwen3.6-27B 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.

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.

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 Qwen3.6-27B
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)ΔQwen3.6-27B
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)68.8Margin→ 8.7Qwen3.6-27B77.5
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)94.8Margin← 5.6Qwen3.6-27B89.2
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)63.8Margin← 4.5Qwen3.6-27B59.3
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)55.3Margin← 2.0Qwen3.6-27B53.3
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6-27B76.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)B · Qwen3.6-27B

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.8%B 24%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 10.8
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 34.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.

  2. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 94.8%B 84.3%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 10.5
    HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 94.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 84.3%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 56.9%B 59.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 2.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 56.9%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79%B 77.2%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 1.8
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 79%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.6%B 53.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 0.9
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 52.6%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not availableQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)1MQwen3.6-27B262KDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.9%59.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
BrowseCompSource 73.2%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 45.1%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 69%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 11891140DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
ToolathlonSource 47.8%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 31.1%27.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 95%94.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
GDPval-AASource 34.4%32.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA BriefcaseSource 831—Not 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 —72.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —53.4%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1487Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —70.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —54.84%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
CodeforcesSource 3052.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79%77.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.6%53.5%Qwen3.6-27B leads
SWE MultilingualSource 73.3%71.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.9%59.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA Coding IndexSource 56.2%53.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 44.9%39.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
LiveCodeBenchSource —83.9%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —36.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
MRCR 1MSource 78.7%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 60.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 63.0%68.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CritPtSource 7.1%1.1%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.2%86.2%Tie
SimpleQASource 34.1%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 78.9%—Not comparable
GPQASource 88.1%87.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
GPQA-DSource 88.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.8%24%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.3%37.0%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 89.4%84.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-HLESource 32.1%21.6%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.9%-19.8%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 37.2%19.2%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 95.8%48.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA Openness IndexSource 50.0%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —93.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —66%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —91.4%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.8%84.3%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.4%—Not comparable
ApexSource 33.0%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.7%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —93.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1238—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.9%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.8%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —84.1%Not comparable
DynaMathSource —85.6%Not comparable
MStarSource —81.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —56.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78.4%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.2%Not comparable
CountBenchSource —97.8%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.5%Not comparable
ERQASource —62.5%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —87.7%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.6%Not comparable
V*Source —94.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —74.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 79.2%67.6%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.6-27B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Qwen3.6-27B 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 Qwen3.6-27B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.3 versus 53.3. 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 (Max) or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 68.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Qwen3.6-27B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94.8 versus 89.2. 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 Qwen3.6-27B?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 59.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)
API / mo$315
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

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.