DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Baichuan M2 32B
Baichuan M2 32B comes out ahead, 58 to 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
DeepSeekDeepSeek R1 0528
41/100- ECI141.2
- Price$0.512 / $2.19
- Context164K
- Our pick
BaichuanBaichuan M2 32B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.07
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Baichuan M2 32B is our pick
Baichuan M2 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 (41). It leads on price. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins 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 priceBaichuan M2 32BBaichuan M2 32B $0.07 · DeepSeek R1 0528 $0.932 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek R1 0528 163,840 · Baichuan M2 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsDeepSeek R1 0528: Text · Baichuan M2 32B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek R1 0528 | Baichuan M2 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 49 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 10 |
| Context window | 20% | 28 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 41/100 | 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 0528DeepSeek | Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 141.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #108 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 76.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.512 | $0.07 (best) |
| Output | $2.19 | $0.07 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.932 | $0.07 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 16 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 163,840 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 16 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 28, 2025 | Aug 13, 2025 |
| 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 R1 0528$9.50
- Baichuan M2 32B$0.84
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek R1 0528 or Baichuan M2 32B?
Baichuan M2 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 (41). It leads on price. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins 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 or Baichuan M2 32B?
Baichuan M2 32B is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.07 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0.512 input / $2.19 output per million tokens (median across 16 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.07 per million tokens for Baichuan M2 32B versus $0.932 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (13× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. DeepSeek R1 0528 has an ECI of 141.2 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 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 Baichuan M2 32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek R1 0528 has the largest context window at 163,840 tokens, against 131,072 for Baichuan M2 32B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek R1 0528 up to 32,768, Baichuan M2 32B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek R1 0528 accepts text; Baichuan M2 32B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT and Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Baichuan M2 32B is the newest, released Aug 13, 2025. DeepSeek R1 0528 came out May 28, 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
- Add Gemini 2.5 FlashThree-way comparison
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.6
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.7
- Baichuan M2 32B vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- Baichuan M2 32B vs Trinity MiniArcee AI
