Deployed worldwide
WZ-IT Logo

Llama 4 vs. Qwen 3.5 vs. DeepSeek V4: Which Open-Source Model for Local Enterprise AI?

Timo Wevelsiep
Timo Wevelsiep
Updated: 01.08.2026
#LLM #Llama4 #Qwen #DeepSeek #OpenSource #AI #OnPremise #Enterprise

Editorial note: The information in this article was compiled to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication. Technical details, prices, versions, licensing terms, and external content may change. Please verify the information provided independently, particularly before making business-critical or security-related decisions. This article does not replace individual professional, legal, or tax advice.

Llama 4 vs. Qwen 3.5 vs. DeepSeek V4: Which Open-Source Model for Local Enterprise AI?

AI Cube Pro — Local AI inference with the latest open-source models. Pre-configured, GDPR-compliant. Get a consultation

2026 is the year of open-source LLMs. Almost every flagship model is a Mixture of Experts (MoE): massive parameter counts but efficient inference because only a fraction is activated per token. For enterprises, this means: powerful AI on your own hardware — without OpenAI API dependency.

But which model? Llama 4 from Meta, Qwen 3.5 from Alibaba, or DeepSeek V4? This comparison shows the differences — focused on local enterprise deployment.

Table of Contents

Models at a glance

Llama 4 Maverick Llama 4 Scout Qwen 3.5 DeepSeek V4 DeepSeek V4 Pro
Creator Meta Meta Alibaba DeepSeek DeepSeek
Architecture MoE MoE MoE MoE MoE
Parameters (total) 400B 109B 397B ~685B 1.6T
Parameters (active) 17B 17B 17B ~37B 49B
Context window 1M 10M 256K 1M 1M
Languages 12 12 200+ 20+ 20+
License Llama License Llama License Apache 2.0 MIT MIT

All five are MoE models. This means: the total parameter count is misleading — what matters are the active parameters per token and the hardware required.

Benchmarks: Who leads where?

Benchmark Llama 4 Maverick Qwen 3.5 DeepSeek V4 DeepSeek V4 Pro
MMLU-Pro 80.5 86.7 ~82 83.7
GPQA Diamond ~75 88.4 ~80 ~82
LiveCodeBench 43.4 ~55 ~70 93.5
SWE-bench ~35 ~40 ~75 83.7
AIME ~45 ~60 ~85 99.4

DeepSeek V4 Pro dominates code and reasoning — by a wide margin. But it's also the largest model (49B active parameters) and needs correspondingly more hardware.

Qwen 3.5 leads in GPQA Diamond (scientific reasoning) and MMLU (general knowledge). With 200+ languages, it's the best choice for multilingual applications.

Llama 4 Maverick trails in benchmarks — but has the second-largest context window and is well integrated into Western toolchains through Meta.

Hardware requirements

Important with mixture of experts: VRAM demand follows the total parameters, not the active ones. Only the compute per token is sparse - all experts have to sit in memory. Rule of thumb for the weights: quantized (Q4) roughly 0.5 GB per billion parameters, in FP16 about four times that. Context and KV cache add on top depending on context length and concurrency.

Model Total / active VRAM (Q4, weights only) Runs on
Llama 4 Scout 109B / 17B roughly 55 GB RTX PRO 6000 (96 GB), AI Cube (128 GB)
DeepSeek V4 Flash 284B / 13B roughly 142 GB 2x RTX PRO 6000
Qwen 3.5 397B / 17B roughly 199 GB 3x RTX PRO 6000 or multi-node
Llama 4 Maverick 400B / 17B roughly 201 GB 3x RTX PRO 6000 or multi-node
DeepSeek V4 Pro 1.6T / 49B roughly 800 GB Multi-node

For most enterprise use cases you do not need this class at all. A dense model with 27B to 70B parameters covers chat, RAG, summaries and code generation and fits on a single card when quantized - Qwen3 32B takes roughly 20 GB in Q4, Llama 3.3 70B roughly 48 GB. The MoE giants above pay off once you hit the quality ceiling of the dense models and can provide the hardware.

Context windows and RAG

For RAG pipelines (Retrieval Augmented Generation), the context window is decisive:

  • Llama 4 Scout: 10M tokens — theoretically massive, but limited by hardware in practice. 10M tokens require enormous memory for the KV cache.
  • DeepSeek V4: 1M tokens — practical for large document collections.
  • Qwen 3.5: 256K tokens — more than sufficient for most RAG pipelines. More realistic than 10M you rarely need.

Recommendation: For enterprise RAG on internal documents, Qwen 3.5 with 256K context is the most pragmatic compromise. Those who need to process single very large documents (contracts, technical manuals) benefit from DeepSeek's 1M.

Licensing

Model License Commercial use Restrictions
Llama 4 Llama Community License ✅ Yes >700M MAU requires Meta license
Qwen 3.5 Apache 2.0 ✅ Yes None
DeepSeek V4 MIT ✅ Yes None

DeepSeek V4 under MIT is the most permissive option — no restrictions, no notification requirements, no MAU limits. For enterprises needing legal clarity, this is a strong argument.

Qwen 3.5 under Apache 2.0 is also straightforward — patent grant included.

Llama 4 uses the Llama Community License — not a true open-source license in the OSI sense. Commercial use is permitted, but with restrictions:

  • 700M MAU limit: Above 700 million monthly active users, a separate Meta license is required
  • EU restriction for multimodal: The vision/multimodal capabilities of Llama 4 are not licensed for companies headquartered in the EU (https://www.llama.com/llama4/license/). This affects image analysis, OCR and multimodal RAG pipelines.
  • Attribution required: "Built with Llama" must be displayed on derivatives
  • Acceptable Use Policy: Meta can restrict usage — e.g., for legal or medical advice
  • Not OSI-standard: Meta retains rights and can change terms

For EU enterprises wanting to deploy multimodal AI, Llama 4 is a non-starter. For text-only inference it's usable, but Qwen 3.5 (Apache 2.0) or DeepSeek V4 (MIT) offer more legal certainty.

Recommendation by use case

Use Case Recommended model Why
General enterprise chat Qwen 3.5 Best multilingual support, strong general knowledge
Code generation & review DeepSeek V4 LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench leader
RAG on German documents Qwen 3.5 200+ languages, 256K context sufficient for most pipelines
Legal text analysis DeepSeek V4 Strongest reasoning, MIT license for compliance
Budget solution (24 GB VRAM) Llama 4 Scout or Qwen 3.5 Both 17B active parameters, both run on consumer GPUs
Maximum context Llama 4 Scout 10M token context window (if hardware allows)

For the majority of enterprise applications, we recommend Qwen 3.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash. Both run on a single RTX 6000, both have open licenses, both deliver excellent results in German and English.

Which model fits your enterprise? We advise on model selection and deploy the model on your AI Cube or GPU server — pre-configured with Open WebUI or your preferred chat interface. Schedule a consultation | Configure AI Cube

Enquiry

Select the right local model with real data

We compare quality, licensing, hardware requirements, and throughput for your use case, then deploy the selected model on private infrastructure.

Where are you in the model selection process?

How should we get back to you?

Frequently Asked Questions

Answers to important questions about this topic

There is no universally best model. DeepSeek V4 leads in code and reasoning, Qwen 3.5 in multilingual support (200+ languages), Llama 4 Scout in context window (10M tokens). The choice depends on the use case.

Llama 4 Maverick has 400B total parameters but only 17B active parameters (MoE). A single server with 48 GB VRAM can load the model quantized; for full quality you need 96+ GB.

MoE models have many parameters but only activate a fraction per request. Llama 4 Maverick has 400B parameters but uses only 17B per token. This saves compute while maintaining quality.

Qwen 3.5 explicitly supports 200+ languages and scores 86.7% on MMLU. For German enterprise applications, it's the best choice — followed by DeepSeek V4 and Llama 4.

Llama 4 and Qwen 3.5 use their own open-weight licenses with commercial use. DeepSeek V4 is under MIT license — the most permissive option without restrictions.

For models up to 32B parameters, a GPU with 24-48 GB VRAM is sufficient (e.g., RTX 4090 or RTX 6000). For 70B+ you need 48-96 GB VRAM or unified memory (DGX Spark: 128 GB).

Timo Wevelsiep

Written by

Timo Wevelsiep

Co-Founder & CEO

Co-Founder of WZ-IT. Specialized in cloud infrastructure, open-source platforms and managed services for SMEs and enterprise clients worldwide.

LinkedIn

Let's Talk About Your Idea

Whether a specific IT challenge or just an idea - we look forward to the exchange. In a brief conversation, we'll evaluate together if and how your project fits with WZ-IT.

Arrange a callback

Callback

Arrange a callback

Leave your number and we will call back — at the latest on the next business day.

For a longer conversation you can book an appointment instead.

Selected customers and projects

  • ml&s
  • Rekorder
  • Keymate
  • Führerscheinmacher
  • SolidProof
  • ARGE
  • Boese VA
  • nextGYM
  • Maho Management
  • Golem.de
  • Millenium
  • Paritel
  • Yonju
  • EVADXB
  • Mr. Clipart
  • Aphy AG
  • Negosh
  • ABCO Water Systems
Timo Wevelsiep & Robin Zins - CEOs of WZ-IT

Timo Wevelsiep & Robin Zins

Managing Directors of WZ-IT

1/3 - Topic Selection33%

What is your inquiry about?

Select one or more areas where we can support you.