DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base comes out ahead, 45 to 38 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek OCR 2 is 28% cheaper per token.
DeepSeekDeepSeek OCR 2
38/100- ECI—
- Price$0.46 / $0.749
- Context8K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.54 / $1.33
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base is our pick
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against DeepSeek OCR 2 (38). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek OCR 2 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceDeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek OCR 2 $0.532 · Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base $0.739 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 35B-A3B BaseQwen3.5 35B-A3B Base 262,144 · DeepSeek OCR 2 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 35B-A3B BaseDeepSeek OCR 2: Text, Images · Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek OCR 2 | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 60 | 54 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 38/100 | 45/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek OCR 2DeepSeek | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B BaseAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.46 (best) | $0.54 |
| Output | $0.749 (best) | $1.33 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.532 (best) | $0.739 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jan 27, 2026 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek OCR 2$6.10
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base$8.07
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek OCR 2 or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base?
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against DeepSeek OCR 2 (38). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek OCR 2 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek OCR 2 or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base?
DeepSeek OCR 2 is cheaper at $0.46 input / $0.749 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base costs $0.54 input / $1.33 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.532 per million tokens for DeepSeek OCR 2 versus $0.739 for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. DeepSeek OCR 2 has not been scored yet and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek OCR 2 and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek OCR 2 and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 8,192 for DeepSeek OCR 2. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek OCR 2 up to 8,192, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek OCR 2 accepts text and images; Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base is the newest, released Feb 24, 2026. DeepSeek OCR 2 came out Jan 27, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add MiniMax-M2 HerThree-way comparison
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs MiniMax-M2 HerMiniMax
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Qwen3 Coder NextAlibaba (Qwen)
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs GLM-4.6VZ.ai (Zhipu)
- DeepSeek OCR 2 vs Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base vs Mistral Large 3Mistral AI
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Base vs GPT-5.1 Codex miniOpenAI
