Qwen3 32B vs DeepSeek-V3.1 vs DeepSeek-R1
DeepSeek-V3.1 comes out ahead, 55 to 51 and 51 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 32B
51/100- ECI138.5
- Price$0.70 / $2.80
- Context131K
- Our pick
DeepSeekDeepSeek-V3.1
55/100- ECI139.9
- Price$0.385 / $1.25
- Context131K
- DeepSeek
DeepSeek-R1
51/100- ECI139.0
- Price$0.70 / $2.60
- Context128K
DeepSeek-V3.1 is our pick
DeepSeek-V3.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against DeepSeek-R1 (51) and Qwen3 32B (51). It leads on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityDeepSeek-V3.1Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek-V3.1 139.9 · DeepSeek-R1 139.0 · Qwen3 32B 138.5
- Lowest priceDeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek-V3.1 $0.601 · DeepSeek-R1 $1.18 · Qwen3 32B $1.23 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 32B and DeepSeek-V3.1Qwen3 32B 131,072 · DeepSeek-V3.1 131,072 · DeepSeek-R1 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3 32B: Text · DeepSeek-V3.1: Text · DeepSeek-R1: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 32B | DeepSeek-V3.1 | DeepSeek-R1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 64 | 65 | 64 |
| Price | 25% | 46 | 60 | 47 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 51/100 | 55/100 | 51/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | DeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek | DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 138.5 | 139.9 (best) | 139.0 |
| ECI rank | #106 of 148 | #100 of 148 (best) | #104 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.7% | — | 71.7% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 66.9% (best) | — | 53.3% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.70 | $0.385 (best) | $0.70 |
| Output | $2.80 | $1.25 (best) | $2.60 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.23 | $0.601 (best) | $1.18 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 8 providers | Median of 11 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenMIT License | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3-32b | — | — |
| API providers | 14 (best) | 8 | 12 |
| Released | Apr 29, 2025 | Aug 21, 2025 | Jan 20, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | — | Jul 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3 32B$12.60
- DeepSeek-V3.1$6.35
- DeepSeek-R1$12.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 32B, DeepSeek-V3.1 or DeepSeek-R1?
DeepSeek-V3.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against DeepSeek-R1 (51) and Qwen3 32B (51). It leads on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B, DeepSeek-V3.1 or DeepSeek-R1?
DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.385 input / $1.25 output per million tokens (median across 8 API providers). DeepSeek-R1 costs $0.70 input / $2.60 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers); Qwen3 32B costs $0.70 input / $2.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.601 per million tokens for DeepSeek-V3.1 versus $1.18 for DeepSeek-R1 (2× as much) and $1.23 for Qwen3 32B (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), DeepSeek-R1 139.0 (#104 of 148) and Qwen3 32B 138.5 (#106 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (136.1–143.3 vs 136.2–140.4), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 32B, DeepSeek-V3.1 and DeepSeek-R1 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. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 32B and DeepSeek-V3.1 have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 128,000 for DeepSeek-R1. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 32B up to 16,384, DeepSeek-V3.1 up to 8,192, DeepSeek-R1 up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 32B accepts text; DeepSeek-V3.1 accepts text; DeepSeek-R1 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (MIT License), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek-V3.1 is the newest, released Aug 21, 2025. Qwen3 32B came out Apr 29, 2025; DeepSeek-R1 came out Jan 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 32B Apr 2025, DeepSeek-R1 Jul 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.
