Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
55.47/100
Margin
2.5pts
winning →
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 2 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
38
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
2
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.01 versus 55.47. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)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%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 39.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1299Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
CodeforcesSource 2919.0Not 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%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 10.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%Not comparable
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%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 33.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 8.481%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.01 to 55.47.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 6.4. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

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.