Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Qwen3.6 27B

DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4 Flash DeepSeek

53.6

Rank #35 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 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 Flash leads 53.7 to 25.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 34% for DeepSeek V4 Flash and 7% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
ProviderDeepSeekAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index53.642.2
Released2026-04-242026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output393K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$3.60
Results tracked4111

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 47.9 (#59), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
SciCode49.9%37.3%
FrontierCode18.8%—
LMArena WebDev1582—
WeirdML63%—
LMArena Coding1457—
ALE-Bench1,306—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.7 (#30), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
CritPt16.6%0.9%
Chess Puzzles33%22%
Mystery Game Puzzles34%7%
DTBench90.9%78.1%
LMCA41.7%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index154.49146.5
ARC-AGI-261.4%—
SimpleBench61.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
ARC-AGI-189%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1444—

Math DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 60.3 (#37), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.5%35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%91.1%
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions76.5%—
ProofBench56%—
LMArena Math1427—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 55.4 (#48), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond91%85.9%
SimpleQA Verified33.6%—
LMArena Expert1441—

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.0 (#72), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1420—
LMArena Chinese1468—
LMArena French1439—
LMArena German1418—
LMArena Japanese1406—
LMArena Korean1384—
LMArena Russian1428—
LMArena Spanish1436—

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 74.9 (#81), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1421—

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 43.8 (#85), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1434—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4 Flash: 63.8 (#61), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 FlashQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1432—
LMArena Creative Writing1403—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1559—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1449—

Frequently asked questions

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

DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

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

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

DeepSeek V4 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.9 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

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

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Flash has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper