# DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Max

> Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-qwen3-7-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 21

## Summary

- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 61.7 to 41.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 54% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 26% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 51.4 |
| Rank | 40 | 35 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | $7.50 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1620 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 51.9% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1511 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,092 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: —
- Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 89.6% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 14.3% | 13.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1485 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 89.9% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 47% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.01 | 153.74 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 46.3% | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 54% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1493 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 95.6% |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1505 | 1488 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1506 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 1473 | 1482 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1499 | — |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | 1460 |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1476 | 1484 |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1436 | 1450 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1540 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.

### Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 50.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen3.7 Max share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.