DeepSeek R1 0528 vs DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B
DeepSeek R1 0528 comes out ahead, 56 to 42 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is 14× cheaper per token.
- Our pick
DeepSeekDeepSeek R1 0528
56/100- ECI141.2
- Price$0.512 / $2.19
- Context164K
- DeepSeek
DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B
42/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.09
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
DeepSeek R1 0528 is our pick
DeepSeek R1 0528 is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B (42). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityDeepSeek R1 0528Shared benchmarks: DeepSeek R1 0528 71.4% · DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 26.6%
- Lowest priceDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8BDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B $0.068 · DeepSeek R1 0528 $0.932 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek R1 0528 163,840 · DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsDeepSeek R1 0528: Text · DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek R1 0528 | DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 50% | 71 | 27 |
| Price | 25% | 49 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 10 |
| Context window | 10% | 28 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 42/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek | DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8BDeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 141.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #108 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 76.3% (best) | 9.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.4% (best) | 43.9% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.512 | $0.06 (best) |
| Output | $2.19 | $0.09 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.932 | $0.068 (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 (best) | 32,000 tokens |
| 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 | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 16 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 28, 2025 | May 29, 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
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B$0.78
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek R1 0528 or DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B?
DeepSeek R1 0528 is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B (42). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek R1 0528 or DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B?
DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.09 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 $0.068 per million tokens for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B versus $0.932 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (14× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025): DeepSeek R1 0528 71.4% and DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 26.6%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek R1 0528 76.3%, DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 9.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek R1 0528 66.4%, DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 43.9%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek R1 0528 and DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek R1 0528 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 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 DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek R1 0528 up to 32,768, DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek R1 0528 accepts text; DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is the newest, released May 29, 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
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan
- DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Command R7B ArabicCohere
