Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Qwen3.6 27B
DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 Pro leads 56.5 to 25.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 43% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 7% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper at $0.66 / $1.98 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.3 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 393K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.98 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 11 |
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), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 51% | 37.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 77.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 28.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1582 | — |
| WeirdML | 66.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1470 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,403 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 32.8 (#58), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 47.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,285 | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 56.5 (#24), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 18% | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 22% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | 7% |
| DTBench | 93.9% | 78.1% |
| LMCA | 45.5% | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.31 | 146.5 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 61.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 40% | — |
| ForecastBench | 56.1 | — |
Math DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 64.8 (#30), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 64.6% | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.6% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 76.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1455 | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 59.5 (#31), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.7% | 85.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 52.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1464 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 54.4 (#45), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1486 | — |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1445 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 76.1 (#47), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1448 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 45.0 (#51), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench Life | 13.5% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1458 | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 65.5 (#46), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1166 | 1026 |
| LMArena Text | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1446 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1553 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Qwen3.6 27B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Qwen3.6 27B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1.98 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.4 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Pro does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4 Pro and Qwen3.6 27B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Pro has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.