Model comparison

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6 27B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 9 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

DeepSeek

52.8

Rank #38 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B

Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 50.2 to 25.0.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 43% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 7% for Qwen3.6 27B.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen3.6 27B specifications
	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
Provider	DeepSeek	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	52.8	42.2
Released	2026-09-09	2026-04-22
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	1M	262K
Max output	393K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.15	$0.60
Output $ / M tokens	$0.60	$3.60
Results tracked	37	11

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
SciCode	51.9%	37.3%
LMArena WebDev	1619	—
LMArena Coding	1506	—
ALE-Bench	1,092	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
APEX-Agents	39.5%	—
GDP.pdf	19.8%	—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
CritPt	14.3%	0.9%
Mystery Game Puzzles	43%	7%
DTBench	89.9%	78.1%
LMCA	47%	34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index	154.9	146.5
NYT Connections (extended)	89.6%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	22%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1483	—
Surface Evolver Bench	46.3%	—

Math DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	67.4%	35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	98.3%	91.1%
FrontierMath Tier 4	26.8%	—
ProofBench	54%	—
LMArena Math	1477	—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond	89.8%	85.9%
LMArena Expert	1506	—

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Vision	1277	—
Furniture Assembly	34.2%	—

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English	1448	—
LMArena Chinese	1497	—
LMArena French	1452	—
LMArena German	1484	—
LMArena Japanese	1412	—
LMArena Korean	1452	—
LMArena Russian	1471	—
LMArena Spanish	1459	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following	1474	—

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query	1475	—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek V4.1 Flash	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text	1462	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1435	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1540	—
EQ-Bench 4	—	1026
LMArena Multi-Turn	1457	—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen3.6 27B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3.6 27B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.9 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen3.6 27B share?

9 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.