Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.6-27B share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 30 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 14
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.47 versus 53.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 70.6 against 59.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 34.5% to 24%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in coding, 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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin← 11.3 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin→ 7.7 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | Margin← 4.8 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin← 3.7 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.5%B 24%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 10.5HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 94.0%B 84.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 9.7HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 94.0%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 84.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 59.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 4Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.4%B 77.2%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 2.2SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 87.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 1.3GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. 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) | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 59.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| 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% | 94.2% | Tie |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 32.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 1140 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 27.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | 77.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | 53.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | 71.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 59.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 39.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 53.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 86.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 87.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 24% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 37.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 84.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 21.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | -19.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 19.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 94.0% | 84.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 67.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 24%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 69.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 89.2. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 59.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.