Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comes out ahead, 79 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
55/100- ECI143.8
- Price$0.30 / $2.90
- Context262K
- Our pick
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
79/100- ECI158.8
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is our pick
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8
- Lowest priceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 69 | 87 |
| Price | 25% | 49 | 74 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 55/100 | 79/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 143.8 | 158.8 (best) |
| ECI rank | #93 of 165 | #19 of 165 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 80.1% | 93.2% (best) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 71.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 86.7% | 99.4% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 40.4% | 42.5% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.15 (best) |
| Output | $2.90 | $0.60 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.003 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.95 | $0.263 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 11 providers | Official DeepSeek API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 81,920 tokens | 384,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | deepseek-flash |
| API providers | 12 | 40 (best) |
| Released | Jul 25, 2025 | Oct 17, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | May 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (3.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8 (#93 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (156.7–162.2 vs 141.9–145.2), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 80.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 86.7%; SimpleQA Verified — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 42.5%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 40.4%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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 V4.1 Flash 1017 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache 2.0 and MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 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 GLM-4.7Three-way comparison
- Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.7
- Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs GPT-5 MiniOpenAI · ECI 145.4
- Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek · ECI 141.2
- Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.6
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic · ECI 160.4
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.8
