Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) and Qwen3.6-27B share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High); 30 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
- 14
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 53.95 versus 53.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 91.9 against 89.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HMMT Feb 2026, 91.9% to 84.3%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5 | Margin→ 9.0 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3 | Margin→ 4.0 | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9 | Margin← 2.7 | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1 | Margin→ 1.2 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 91.9%B 84.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 7.6HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 91.9%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 84.3%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 29.4%B 24%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 5.4HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 29.4%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 56.6%B 59.3%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 2.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 56.6%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 78.6%B 77.2%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 1.4SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 78.6%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 52.3%B 53.5%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 1.2SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 52.3%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.6-27B wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.6% | 59.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 40.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 67.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95.6% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 28.2% | 27.0% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 32.4% | 32.0% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1147 | 1140 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2816.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 78.6% | 77.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.3% | 53.5% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 70.2% | 71.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.6% | 59.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 42.0% | 39.8% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 52.0% | 53.7% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 86.4% | 86.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 28.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 73.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 87.4% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 87.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 29.4% | 24% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.5% | 37.0% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.7% | 84.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 27.8% | 21.6% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -22.3% | -19.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 35.5% | 19.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 89.7% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 91.9% | 84.3% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 85.1% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 19.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1238 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.5% | 67.6% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.95 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HMMT Feb 2026, where the scores are 91.9% and 84.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 52.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 68.5. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 89.2. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.3 versus 55.3. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.