Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Exaone 4.0 32B
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Exaone 4.0 32B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 1 to Exaone 4.0 32B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 26
- Exaone 4.0 32B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 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 Pro (High) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.47 to 40.44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | Exaone 4.0 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin→ 24.8 | Exaone 4.0 32B81.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.1%B 81.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 5.3MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Exaone 4.0 32B128K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 4.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 25.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 81.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 6.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 62.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 4.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | -62.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 10.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 81.0% | Exaone 4.0 32B leads |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 33.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Exaone 4.0 32B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 40.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 87.1% and 81.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Exaone 4.0 32B?
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.