Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 26 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
Margin
9.7pts
winning →
65.2/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.6 Plus share 26 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 34 to Qwen3.6 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
26
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
12
Qwen3.6 Plus only
34
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 26 shared benchmark results across 7 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

Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 70.3 against 69.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HMMT Feb 2026, 94.0% to 87.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 Qwen3.6 Plus
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔQwen3.6 Plus
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0Margin← 33.5Qwen3.6 Plus60.5
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin← 9.0Qwen3.6 Plus61.6
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8Margin→ 0.5Qwen3.6 Plus70.3
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0Margin→ 0.1Qwen3.6 Plus57.1
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus62.0
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus84.7
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus79.8
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus82.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)B · Qwen3.6 Plus

  1. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 94.0%B 87.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 6.2
    HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 94.0%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 87.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.5%B 28.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 5.7
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 54.4%B 56.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.2
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 56.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.3%B 61.6%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 1.7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.1%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 1.4
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MQwen3.6 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%61.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
BrowseCompSource 80.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%48.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
ToolathlonSource 49%39.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%31.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 12991135DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%27.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Claw-EvalSource —58.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —57.2%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —70.7%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —44.3%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —41.5%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —74.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —74.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —50.60%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —18.0%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%78.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%56.6%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%73.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%40.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%54.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source —87.1%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —25.56%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%69.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
CritPtSource 10.0%2.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AI-NeedleSource —68.3%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —62%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%88.5%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%90.4%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%28.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%39.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%88.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%25.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%2.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%26.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%32.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
SuperGPQASource —71.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.3%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%87.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%—Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
AIME26Source —95.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —96.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —94.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —83.8%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —26.207%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —8.333%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —57.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12641249DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
MMMUSource —86.0%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —78.8%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —68.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource —81.5%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —78.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%75.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —75.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HMMT Feb 2026, where the scores are 94.0% and 87.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.1 versus 57. 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 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 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 Plus?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 60.5. 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 Plus?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 61.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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.