// head_to_head
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 wins outright — it scores higher and costs less.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads by 1.0 points overall while listing 21× cheaper per blended million tokens. There is no trade-off to reason about here; the only reason to pick the other is a constraint this table does not show, like an existing contract, a region, or a provider you are already on. DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0356 per point.
deepseek
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- Blended / 1M
- $0.105
- Context
- 1.3M
- Released
- Jul 31, 2026
- Overall score
- 74.2
qwen
Qwen3.7 Max
- Blended / 1M
- $2.21
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- May 21, 2026
- Overall score
- 73.1
Specs and pricing
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | 74.2win | 73.1 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | $0.0356win | $0.0971 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.105win | $2.21 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.080win | $1.48 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.180win | $4.42 |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.016win | $0.295 |
| Context window | 1.3Mwin | 1M |
| Max output tokens | 384Kwin | 131K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 on top, Qwen3.7 Max below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $28.99/mo | $623.04/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $49.20/mo | $973.50/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $42.56/mo | $873.20/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $90.30/mo | $1747.88/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $186.00/mo | $3540.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You are running this at volume
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Lowest measured cost per point of capability at $0.0356 per point — the gap compounds with every request.
Quality matters more than the bill
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Highest overall LiveBench score of the two at 74.2.
The workload is coding or agentic work
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Leads on agentic coding — 46.8 against 43.6.
You need to fit large documents in one call
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Wider context window — 1.3M against 1M.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Qwen3.7 Max FAQ
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Qwen3.7 Max?
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 wins outright — it scores higher and costs less. DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads by 1.0 points overall while listing 21× cheaper per blended million tokens. There is no trade-off to reason about here; the only reason to pick the other is a constraint this table does not show, like an existing contract, a region, or a provider you are already on. DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 also leads on measured cost per point of capability, at $0.0356 per point.
Is DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 cheaper than Qwen3.7 Max?
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 lists at $0.105 per million tokens and Qwen3.7 Max at $2.21 — DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is 21× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 charges $0.080 in and $0.180 out, Qwen3.7 Max charges $1.48 and $4.42 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Qwen3.7 Max: which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 scores 74.2 and Qwen3.7 Max scores 73.1 overall on LiveBench, the mean of its seven categories. That is a 1.0-point lead for DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. Category scores differ from the overall figure — a model can lead on reasoning and trail on coding, which the per-category table above breaks out.
Which gives better value for money, DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Qwen3.7 Max?
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. Cost per point divides the measured dollars LiveBench spent running the benchmark by the score it earned, so it captures something token pricing misses: a reasoning model can emit many times more tokens than its per-token rate suggests. DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 works out at $0.0356 per point and Qwen3.7 Max at $0.0971.
Does DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or Qwen3.7 Max have a bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger context window: 1.3M for DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 against 1M for Qwen3.7 Max. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 and Qwen3.7 Max support prompt caching?
Both publish a cached-input rate: $0.016 per million for DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 and $0.295 for Qwen3.7 Max, against full input rates of $0.080 and $1.48. On a workload with a long stable prefix — a system prompt, a tool schema, a retrieved corpus — that changes the economics more than the headline price does.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.