DeepSeek-V4-ProvsQwen3.5
DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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. | 14% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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. | — | 76.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 93.5% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can 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. | — | 52.5% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.4%Best | 69% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity'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. | — | 28.7% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.1%Best | 88.4% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 62.2% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1464 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Qwen |
| Release date | Apr 24 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
Which is better: DeepSeek-V4-Pro or Qwen3.5?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads Qwen3.5 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (BrowseComp, GPQA Diamond). Qwen3.5 shipped 67 days before DeepSeek-V4-Pro, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BrowseComp, DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads at 83.4% vs Qwen3.5 at 69%. On GPQA Diamond, DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads at 90.1% vs Qwen3.5 at 88.4%.
Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Pro was released by DeepSeek on Apr 24 2026.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads on GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek-V4-Pro 90.1% vs Qwen3.5 88.4%.
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-ProvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.5vsClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4-ProvsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.5vsGPT-5.6 SolDeepSeek-V4-ProvsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashDeepSeek-V4-ProvsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.5vsMuse Spark 1.1DeepSeek-V4-ProvsGrok 4.5Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.5DeepSeek-V4-ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5