Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.5-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
Margin
5.2pts
winning →
60.7/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.5-27B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 12 to Qwen3.5-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
16
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
22
Qwen3.5-27B only
12
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.5-27B 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 16 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

Qwen3.5-27B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.7 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.5-27B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 82.7 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.3% to 41.6%. 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 Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.

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 Pro (High) and Qwen3.5-27B
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔQwen3.5-27B
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0Margin→ 25.7Qwen3.5-27B82.7
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin← 18.6Qwen3.5-27B52.0
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8Margin← 4.9Qwen3.5-27B64.9
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B60.6
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27BNot measured
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B82.2
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B95.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)B · Qwen3.5-27B

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.3%B 41.6%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 21.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 41.6%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 61%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 19.4
    BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 61%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.4%B 72.4%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 7
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 72.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.1%B 85.5%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 3.6
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 85.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.1%B 86.1%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 1
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 86.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputQwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.5-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MQwen3.5-27B262KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%41.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
BrowseCompSource 80.4%61%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%93.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1299—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —56.2%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.41%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%72.4%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%39.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%67.3%Qwen3.5-27B leads
CritPtSource 10.0%0.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
LongBench v2Source —60.6%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5-27B wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%86.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%85.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GPQA-DSource 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%33.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%85.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%22.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%-42.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%21.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%79.7%Qwen3.5-27B leads
SuperGPQASource —65.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%—Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
MMLU-ProXSource —82.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.3%Not comparable
MMVUSource —73.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —86.0%Not comparable
V*Source —93.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.5-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B leads
IFEvalSource —95%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.7 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.3% and 41.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.7 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 Qwen3.5-27B?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 64.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5-27B?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 52. 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.