Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No comparison
72.84/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and Qwen3.7 Max share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base; 54 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
4
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
20
Qwen3.7 Max only
54
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Qwen3.7 Max is the better fit if reasoning is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 2 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 Pro Base and Qwen3.7 Max finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Qwen3.7 Max is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseΔQwen3.7 Max
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro Base51.5Margin 38.9Qwen3.7 Max90.4
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base66.4Margin 2.2Qwen3.7 Max64.2
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max77.9
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max97.1
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseB · Qwen3.7 Max
  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53.9%B 73.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 19.7
    SuperGPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 53.9%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 73.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.
  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 73.5%B 89.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 16.1
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 73.5%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 89.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro Base1MQwen3.7 Max1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source 75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 53.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 30.6%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 38.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1273Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.27%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.7%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 83.4%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
BigCodeBenchSource 59.2%Not comparable
HumanEvalSource 76.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.4%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 60.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource 91.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 66.0%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 48.8%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
BBHSource 87.5%Not comparable
DROPSource 88.7%Not comparable
HellaSwagSource 88.0%Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource 81.5%Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource 85.2%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source 51.5%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 90.4%Not comparable
CritPtSource 13.4%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 69.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
AGIEvalSource 83.1%Not comparable
MMLUSource 90.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 90.8%95%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-ProSource 73.5%89.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMMLUSource 90.3%90.3%Tie
C-EvalSource 93.1%Not comparable
CMMLUSource 90.8%Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource 51.1%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 55.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 53.9%73.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
FACTS ParametricSource 62.6%Not comparable
TriviaQASource 85.6%Not comparable
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.4%Not comparable
HLESource 41.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 46.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 38.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 30.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 22.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
GSM8KSource 92.6%Not comparable
MATHSource 64.5%Not comparable
CMathSource 90.9%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource 44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
MGSMSource 84.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource 87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource 86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource 89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource 86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1293Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseQwen3.7 MaxResult
IFEvalSource 94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 80.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Qwen3.7 Max?

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and Qwen3.7 Max are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Qwen3.7 Max?

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 64.2. Inside this category, SuperGPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 51.5. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.