Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash
DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek V4 Pro leads 56.5 to 28.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 91.3% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 43.8% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1.98 for DeepSeek V4 Pro.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.3 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 393K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.98 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 52.4 (#34), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 77.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 28.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1582 | — |
| SciCode | 51% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1470 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,403 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 32.8 (#58), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 47.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,285 | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 56.5 (#24), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.3% | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 47% | 23% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.31 | 144.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 61.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| CritPt | 18% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | — |
| DTBench | 93.9% | — |
| LMCA | 45.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 40% | — |
| ForecastBench | 56.1 | — |
Math DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 64.8 (#30), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 64.6% | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.6% | 86.7% |
| 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.7% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 52.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1464 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 54.4 (#45), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1448 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 45.0 (#51), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench Life | 13.5% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1458 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro: 65.5 (#46), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1446 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1553 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1467 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.3 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; DeepSeek V4 Pro lists at $0.66 and $1.98.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4 Pro and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4 Pro has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.