Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

N/A
No comparison
60.56/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) unranked (Not scored); 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 (Max) and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 28 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max); 11 to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
28
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
11
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) makes more sense if agentic is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 (Max) 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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)ΔQwen3.5-122B-A10B
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1Margin→ 23.5Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5Margin← 18.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9Margin→ 1.1Qwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measured
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)B · Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 63.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 19.6
    BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 83.4%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 63.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 67.9%B 49.4%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 18.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 67.9%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.6%B 72%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 8.6
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 80.6%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 72%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 90.1%B 86.6%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 3.5
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 90.1%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 86.6%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.5%B 86.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 0.8
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 87.5%; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 86.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputQwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.5-122B-A10B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MQwen3.5-122B-A10B262KDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 67.9%49.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
BrowseCompSource 83.4%63.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 48.2%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 73.6%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1307978DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
ToolathlonSource 51.8%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 36.4%20.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 24.3%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 96.2%93.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
GDPval-AASource 40.4%23.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA BriefcaseSource 932—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 40.4%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 84.4%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 38.3%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 25.8%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 46.2%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 64%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —58%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
CodeforcesSource 3206.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.6%72%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 55.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 76.2%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 67.9%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 49.93%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 59.4%45.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.0%42.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.5%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 62.0%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 66.3%66.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads
CritPtSource 12.9%0.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
LongBench v2Source —60.2%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.5%86.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SimpleQASource 57.9%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 84.4%—Not comparable
GPQASource 90.1%86.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
GPQA-DSource 90.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 37.7%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 44.3%32.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.8%85.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-HLESource 35.9%23.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -10.0%-39.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.3%24.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 94.0%85.5%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads
AA Openness IndexSource 50.0%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —67.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 95.2%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 89.8%—Not comparable
ApexSource 38.3%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 90.2%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
MMLU-ProXSource —82.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Qwen3.5-122B-A10BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 76.5%75.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
IFEvalSource —93.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.6 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 70.9. 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 (Max) or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 56.4. 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.