Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Exaone 4.0 32B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported); Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro and Exaone 4.0 32B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro; 12 to Exaone 4.0 32B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- DeepSeek V4 Pro only
- 22
- Exaone 4.0 32B only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 60.66 to 40.44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Exaone 4.0 32B is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
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 | Δ | Exaone 4.0 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3 | Margin→ 40.5 | Exaone 4.0 32B81.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7 | MarginNo overlap | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82.9%B 81.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 ProΔ 1.1MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 82.9%; Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Exaone 4.0 32B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro1M | Exaone 4.0 32B128K | DeepSeek V4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 46.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 50.28% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 17.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 4.1% | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 82.9% | 81.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro leads |
| SimpleQASource | 45% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 72.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 7.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 4.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -62.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 10.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 81.0% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Exaone 4.0 32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 33.5% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Exaone 4.0 32B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.66 to 40.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 82.9% and 81.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Exaone 4.0 32B?
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 41.3. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.