Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Qwen1.5-110B

DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4 Pro DeepSeek

54.3

Rank #31 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

34.2

Rank #234 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek V4 Pro leads 56.5 to 22.7.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4 Pro and Qwen1.5-110B specifications
DeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
ProviderDeepSeekAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.334.2
Released2026-04-242024-04-25
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output393K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.66—
Output $ / M tokens$1.98—
Results tracked4820

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 52.4 (#34), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Coding14701184
SWE-bench Verified77.6%—
FrontierCode28.6%—
LMArena WebDev1582—
SciCode51%—
WeirdML66.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—35%
BigCodeBench Complete—44.4%
ALE-Bench1,403—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 32.8 (#58), Qwen1.5-110B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
APEX-Agents47.3%—
Vending-Bench 23,285—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 56.5 (#24), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Hard Prompts14611168
ForecastBench56.157.7
ARC-AGI-261.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark53.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.3%—
ARC-AGI-190.5%—
CritPt18%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
Mystery Game Puzzles43%—
DTBench93.9%—
LMCA45.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench40%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.31—

Math DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 64.8 (#30), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Math14551185
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)64.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions76.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.6%—
ProofBench50%—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 59.5 (#31), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Expert14641144
GPQA Diamond91.7%—
SimpleQA Verified52.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate8.6%—

Multilingual DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 54.4 (#45), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Non-English14391142
LMArena Chinese14861206
LMArena French14721151
LMArena German14581123
LMArena Japanese14451074
LMArena Korean14471044
LMArena Russian14531118
LMArena Spanish14581142

Instruction Following DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 76.1 (#47), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Instruction Following14481158

Long Context DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 45.0 (#51), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Longer Query14581157
CL-bench Life13.5%—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

DeepSeek V4 Pro: 65.5 (#46), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 ProQwen1.5-110B
LMArena Text14511175
LMArena Creative Writing14461148
LMArena Multi-Turn14671160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1553—
EQ-Bench 41166—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Qwen1.5-110B?

DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek V4 Pro or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?

DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.4 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4 Pro and Qwen1.5-110B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Pro has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper