Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 30 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
Margin
17.4pts
winning →
72.84/100
1 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.7 Max share 30 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 28 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
30
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
8
Qwen3.7 Max only
28
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 30 shared benchmark results across 7 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

Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.9 against 69.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 34.5% to 41.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 (High) and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔQwen3.7 Max
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8Margin→ 8.1Qwen3.7 Max77.9
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0Margin→ 7.2Qwen3.7 Max64.2
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0Margin→ 3.1Qwen3.7 Max97.1
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin← 0.9Qwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not 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 (High)B · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 34.5%B 41.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 6.9
    HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 41.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.3%B 69.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 6.4
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 54.4%B 60.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 6.2
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.1%B 92.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 3.3
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  5. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 94.0%B 97.1%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 3.1
    HMMT Feb 2026: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 94.0%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 97.1%. 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 (High)Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MQwen3.7 Max1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
BrowseCompSource 80.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%53.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%76.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
ToolathlonSource 49%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%38.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 12991273DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%30.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not 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
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%80.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%60.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%78.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%48.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%66.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 10.0%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%89.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource 89.1%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
HLESource 34.5%41.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%30.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%97.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%90.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
ApexSource 27.4%44.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
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 (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12641293Qwen3.7 Max leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 41.4%.

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

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 69.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 94. Inside this category, Apex is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Qwen3.7 Max?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 69.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.