Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Head-to-head evidence from 20 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); Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #47 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 11 to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 18
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.56 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 83.6 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 80.4% to 63.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.
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 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin→ 26.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin← 14.2 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin→ 2.2 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0 |
| Reasoning | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2 |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measured |
| Multilingual | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2 |
| Inst. Following | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 80.4%B 63.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 16.6BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 63.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 49.4%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 13.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.4%B 72%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 7.4SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 72%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 86.6%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 2.5GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 86.6%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.1%B 86.7%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 0.4MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 86.7%. 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) | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Qwen3.5-122B-A10BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B262K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 49.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | 63.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 93.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 23.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 978 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 20.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 58% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | 72% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| 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% | 42.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 45.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 86.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 86.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 32.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 85.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 23.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | -39.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 24.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 85.5% | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| MMVUSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.56 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 80.4% and 63.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.6 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 69.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 56.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.