DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B vs Gemini 2.0 Flash vs QwQ 32B
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 52 and 47 on our weighted score.
DeepSeekDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
47/100- ECI137.4
- Price—
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
52/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against QwQ 32B (52) and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (47). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityQwQ 32BCapabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.6 · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 137.4 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B and Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 131,072 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B: Text · Gemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · QwQ 32B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B and QwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B | Gemini 2.0 Flash | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 62 | 59 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 10 | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 13% | 24 | 61 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 47/100 | 65/100 | 52/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. 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-Distill-Qwen-32BDeepSeek | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.4 | 134.7 | 137.6 (best) |
| ECI rank | #110 of 148 | #116 of 148 | #109 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 64.1% | — | 65.3% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 55.6% | — | 59.2% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | — | $0.66 |
| Output | — | — | $1.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | — | $0.745 |
| Long-context rate | — | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | — | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| 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 | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | — | — | 1 |
| Released | Jan 20, 2025 | Dec 11, 2024 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 2024 | Apr 2024 |
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-Distill-Qwen-32B—
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
- QwQ 32B$8.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B, Gemini 2.0 Flash or QwQ 32B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against QwQ 32B (52) and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (47). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B, Gemini 2.0 Flash or QwQ 32B?
QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.745 per million tokens for QwQ 32B versus . DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B and Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
QwQ 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 137.4 (#110 of 148) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.1–141.7 vs 130.7–138.7), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B, Gemini 2.0 Flash and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, QwQ 32B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.0 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B up to 32,768, Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B accepts text; Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; QwQ 32B accepts text. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B and QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
QwQ 32B is the newest, released Mar 5, 2025. DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B came out Jan 20, 2025; Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, QwQ 32B Apr 2024.
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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B vs GPT-4.1OpenAI · ECI 136.8
- DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B vs Claude Sonnet 3.7Anthropic · ECI 141.2
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic · ECI 133.5
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek · ECI 132.3
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
