DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsQwen3.6
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | Qwen3.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 35B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 256k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.22 | $0.375 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $0.66 | $2.25 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.007 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.04OpenInference | $0.05Darkbloom |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.10OpenInference | $0.70Darkbloom |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 79% | 73.4% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 39% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 49.5% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 67.2% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 82.7% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 51.5% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 70.3% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 73.2% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 76.7% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 21.4% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 34.8% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 25.1% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 75.3% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Qwen |
| Release date | Jul 31 2026 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.6vsClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGPT-6 AstraQwen3.6vsGPT-6 AstraDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.6vsGemini 3.8 FlashDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.6vsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.6vsGrok 4.6DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.6vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads Qwen3.6 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.22 vs $0.375 per million input tokens, and $0.66 vs $2.25 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Qwen3.6 shipped 106 days before DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 is proprietary, while Qwen3.6 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads at 79% vs Qwen3.6 at 73.4%.