DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.7 Plus by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) scores 9.6 points higher (34.8 vs 25.2) but costs 2.5× as much to run the benchmark ($1081 vs $428; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.7 Plus.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.8 | 25.2 | −27.6% Qwen3.7 Plus is 27.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,081.42 | $427.73 | −60.4% Qwen3.7 Plus is 60.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 15.35s | 46.20s | +201.0% Qwen3.7 Plus is 201.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.44 / $1.32 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max): 27.6% less intelligence, 60.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 201.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max)Qwen3.7 PlusToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-vision/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-vision/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill