Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 29 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
Margin
11.8pts
winning →
67.22/100
1 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Qwen3.7 Plus share 29 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 40 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
29
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
9
Qwen3.7 Plus only
40
Comparable categories
4 / 8

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

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 29 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 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 75.6 against 69.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.3% to 70.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, 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 Plus
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔQwen3.7 Plus
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8Margin→ 5.8Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0Margin→ 3.1Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin→ 1.1Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0Margin← 1.1Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.3%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 7
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 54.4%B 57.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 3.2
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.4%B 77.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 1.7
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  4. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.1%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1.4
    MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.1%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 1.2
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus 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 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 80.4%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%73.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
ToolathlonSource 49%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%93%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%21.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 1299936DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%20.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%77.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%57.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%75.8%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%45.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%55.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%65.0%Tie
CritPtSource 10.0%9.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource 89.1%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 34.5%34.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%39.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%90.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%33.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%22.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%92.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%86.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
ApexSource 27.4%22.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12641288Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.3% and 70.3%.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 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 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 69.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 92.9. 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 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 70.6. 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.