DeepSeek V3 0324 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash vs QwQ 32B
Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 66 to 53 and 52 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek V3 0324 is 43% cheaper per token.
DeepSeekDeepSeek V3 0324
52/100- ECI135.9
- Price$0.275 / $1.12
- Context164K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
66/100- ECI140.6
- Price$0.30 / $2.50
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.5
- Price$0.53 / $0.70
- Context131K
Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and DeepSeek V3 0324 (52). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek V3 0324 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGemini 2.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6 · QwQ 32B 137.5 · DeepSeek V3 0324 135.9
- Lowest priceDeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek V3 0324 $0.486 · QwQ 32B $0.573 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek V3 0324 163,840 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashDeepSeek V3 0324: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · QwQ 32B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek V3 0324 and QwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek V3 0324 | Gemini 2.5 Flash | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 59 | 65 | 61 |
| Price | 25% | 62 | 51 | 59 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 25 | 100 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 28 | 61 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 52/100 | 66/100 | 53/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek V3 0324DeepSeek | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 135.9 | 140.6 (best) | 137.5 |
| ECI rank | #128 of 165 | #110 of 165 (best) | #123 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 67.6% (best) | — | 65.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 37.8% | — | 59.2% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.275 (best) | $0.30 | $0.53 |
| Output | $1.12 | $2.50 | $0.70 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.486 (best) | $0.85 | $0.573 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 13 providers | Official Google API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 163,840 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 163,840 tokens (best) | 65,536 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 | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | gemini-2.5-flash | — |
| API providers | 13 | 32 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Mar 24, 2025 | Jun 17, 2025 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 2025 | 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 V3 0324$4.99
- Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
- QwQ 32B$6.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek V3 0324, Gemini 2.5 Flash or QwQ 32B?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and DeepSeek V3 0324 (52). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek V3 0324 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3 0324, Gemini 2.5 Flash or QwQ 32B?
DeepSeek V3 0324 is cheaper at $0.275 input / $1.12 output per million tokens (median across 13 API providers). QwQ 32B costs $0.53 input / $0.70 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers); 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 $0.486 per million tokens for DeepSeek V3 0324 versus $0.573 for QwQ 32B (1.2× as much) and $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Flash 140.6 (#110 of 165), QwQ 32B 137.5 (#123 of 165) and DeepSeek V3 0324 135.9 (#128 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.4–142.1 vs 133.1–141.3), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V3 0324, Gemini 2.5 Flash and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 2.5 Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 163,840 for DeepSeek V3 0324 and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V3 0324 up to 163,840, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek V3 0324 accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; QwQ 32B accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek V3 0324 and QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. DeepSeek V3 0324 came out Mar 24, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- DeepSeek V3 0324 vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 134.9
- DeepSeek V3 0324 vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B InstructMeta · ECI 132.3
- DeepSeek V3 0324 vs Magistral SmallMistral AI · ECI 133.1
- 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
