ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs QwQ 32B

Too close to call on our weighted score (DeepSeek-V3.1 55, QwQ 32B 53). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. DeepSeek

    DeepSeek-V3.1

    Released Aug 21, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI139.9
    • Price$0.385 / $1.25
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek-V3.1

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (DeepSeek-V3.1 55/100, QwQ 32B 53/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DeepSeek-V3.1 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityDeepSeek-V3.1Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek-V3.1 139.9 · QwQ 32B 137.6
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek-V3.1 $0.601 · QwQ 32B $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameDeepSeek-V3.1 131,072 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsDeepSeek-V3.1: Text · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightDeepSeek-V3.1QwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6562
Price25%6056
Inputs & features15%3535
Context window10%2424
Overall100%55/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationDeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeekQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)139.9 (best)137.6
ECI rank#100 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—65.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—59.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.385 (best)$0.66
Output$1.25$1.00 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.601 (best)$0.745
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 8 providersMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenMIT LicenseOpen
API model ID——
API providers8 (best)1
ReleasedAug 21, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Apr 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • DeepSeek-V3.1$6.35
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: DeepSeek-V3.1 or QwQ 32B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (DeepSeek-V3.1 55/100, QwQ 32B 53/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DeepSeek-V3.1 for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or QwQ 32B?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.385 input / $1.25 output per million tokens (median across 8 API providers). QwQ 32B costs $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 $0.601 per million tokens for DeepSeek-V3.1 versus $0.745 for QwQ 32B (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek-V3.1 139.9 (#100 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (136.1–143.3 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek-V3.1 and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek-V3.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek-V3.1 and QwQ 32B share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek-V3.1 up to 8,192, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

DeepSeek-V3.1 accepts text; QwQ 32B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (MIT License), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is the newest, released Aug 21, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons