DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Baichuan M2 32B
Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 58 and 58 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is 13× cheaper per token.
DeepSeekDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.09
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
68/100- ECI140.6
- Price$0.30 / $2.50
- Context1.05M
BaichuanBaichuan M2 32B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.07
- Context131K
Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B (58) and Baichuan M2 32B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 R1 0528 Qwen3 8BDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B $0.068 · Baichuan M2 32B $0.07 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 131,072 · Baichuan M2 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Baichuan M2 32B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B and Baichuan M2 32BPublishes downloadable weights (MIT and Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Baichuan M2 32B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 51 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 10 | 100 | 10 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 61 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 58/100 | 68/100 | 58/100 |
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 R1 0528 Qwen3 8BDeepSeek | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle | Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 140.6 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #110 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 9.3% | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 43.9% | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.06 (best) | $0.30 | $0.07 |
| Output | $0.09 | $2.50 | $0.07 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.068 (best) | $0.85 | $0.07 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Google API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | gemini-2.5-flash | — |
| API providers | 1 | 32 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 29, 2025 | Jun 17, 2025 | Aug 13, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 2025 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B$0.78
- Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
- Baichuan M2 32B$0.84
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Baichuan M2 32B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B (58) and Baichuan M2 32B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 R1 0528 Qwen3 8B, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Baichuan M2 32B?
DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.09 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Baichuan M2 32B costs $0.07 input / $0.07 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.068 per million tokens for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B versus $0.07 for Baichuan M2 32B (1× as much) and $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (13× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B has not been scored yet, Gemini 2.5 Flash has an ECI of 140.6 and Baichuan M2 32B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B, Gemini 2.5 Flash and Baichuan M2 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B and Baichuan M2 32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B and 131,072 for Baichuan M2 32B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B up to 32,000, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, Baichuan M2 32B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Baichuan M2 32B accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B and Baichuan M2 32B publishes its weights (MIT and Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Baichuan M2 32B is the newest, released Aug 13, 2025. Gemini 2.5 Flash came out Jun 17, 2025; DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B came out May 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025.
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
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Command R7B ArabicCohere
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Phi-4-multimodal-instructMicrosoft
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek · ECI 141.2
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
- Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
