Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

58.88/100
Margin
8.3pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (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 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 15 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 54 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
15
DeepSeek V4 Flash only
7
Qwen3.7 Plus only
54
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 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 58.88. 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 mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 40.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HMMT Feb 2026, 40.8% to 92.9%.

Qwen3.7 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash 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.

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 and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryDeepSeek V4 FlashΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash40.8Margin→ 52.1Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash49.1Margin→ 22.6Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash38.8Margin→ 21.3Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash64.2Margin→ 11.4Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 FlashNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 FlashB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 40.8%B 92.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 52.1
    HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 40.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 92.9%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 8.1%B 34.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 26.6
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 8.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 49.1%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 21.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 71.2%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 19.1
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 71.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 49.1%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 8.5
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. 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 FlashQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 FlashNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 FlashNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 49.1%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MCP AtlasSource 64%73.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ToolathlonSource 40.7%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%62.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 54.35%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not 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
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.7%77.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE-bench ProSource 49.1%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE MultilingualSource 69.7%75.8%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 49.1%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
MRCR 1MSource 37.5%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 15.5%—Not comparable
CritPtSource —9.1%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProSource 83%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SimpleQASource 23.1%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 71.5%—Not comparable
GPQASource 71.2%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource 71.2%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 8.1%34.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —90.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —33.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —22.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —25.5%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 40.8%92.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 41.9%86.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ApexSource 1.0%22.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Apex ShortlistSource 9.3%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.7 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 FlashQwen3.7 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 FlashQwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 58.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HMMT Feb 2026, where the scores are 40.8% and 92.9%.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 38.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 64.2. 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 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 40.8. 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 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 49.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.