Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 Flash #134 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.5 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 2 to Qwen3.5 Flash.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 38
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
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
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.47 to 47.65. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 4.7.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash. That is roughly 2.2x on output cost alone.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | 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 | 1299 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | 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) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | 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 | — | 6.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 0.000% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5 Flash?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 47.65.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.5 Flash?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 4.7. Qwen3.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.