ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3 32B vs Claude Sonnet 3.7 vs DeepSeek-R1

Too close to call on our weighted score (DeepSeek-R1 51, Qwen3 32B 51, Claude Sonnet 3.7 50). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 32B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

    51/100
    • ECI138.5
    • Price$0.70 / $2.80
    • Context131K
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 3.7

    Released Feb 19, 2025

    50/100
    • ECI141.2
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
  3. DeepSeek

    DeepSeek-R1

    Released Jan 20, 2025

    51/100
    • ECI139.0
    • Price$0.70 / $2.60
    • Context128K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek-R1 51/100, Qwen3 32B 51/100, Claude Sonnet 3.7 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Sonnet 3.7 for raw capability and DeepSeek-R1 on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Sonnet 3.7Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 3.7 141.2 · DeepSeek-R1 139.0 · Qwen3 32B 138.5
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek-R1DeepSeek-R1 $1.18 · Qwen3 32B $1.23 · Claude Sonnet 3.7 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Sonnet 3.7Claude Sonnet 3.7 200,000 · Qwen3 32B 131,072 · DeepSeek-R1 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 3.7Qwen3 32B: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.7: Text, Images, PDFs · DeepSeek-R1: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 32B and DeepSeek-R1Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 32BClaude Sonnet 3.7DeepSeek-R1
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%646764
Price25%461347
Inputs & features15%357035
Context window10%243224
Overall100%51/10050/10051/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 32B vs Claude Sonnet 3.7 vs DeepSeek-R1 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Sonnet 3.7AnthropicDeepSeek-R1DeepSeek
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)138.5141.2 (best)139.0
ECI rank#106 of 148#96 of 148 (best)#104 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.7%79.7% (best)71.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics66.9% (best)57.8%53.3%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—61.0%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.70 (best)$3.00$0.70 (best)
Output$2.80$15.00$2.60 (best)
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$1.23$6.00$1.18 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIMedian of 3 providersMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Max output16,384 tokens64,000 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model IDqwen3-32b——
API providers14 (best)312
ReleasedApr 29, 2025Feb 19, 2025Jan 20, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Oct 31, 2024Jul 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.

  • Qwen3 32B$12.60
  • Claude Sonnet 3.7$60.00
  • DeepSeek-R1$12.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 32B, Claude Sonnet 3.7 or DeepSeek-R1?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek-R1 51/100, Qwen3 32B 51/100, Claude Sonnet 3.7 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Sonnet 3.7 for raw capability and DeepSeek-R1 on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B, Claude Sonnet 3.7 or DeepSeek-R1?

DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $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); Claude Sonnet 3.7 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.18 per million tokens for DeepSeek-R1 versus $1.23 for Qwen3 32B (1× as much) and $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.7 (5.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 3.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 3.7 141.2 (#96 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 (138.7–142.9 vs 136.2–140.4), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Sonnet 3.7 79.7%, DeepSeek-R1 71.7%, Qwen3 32B 65.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 32B 66.9%, Claude Sonnet 3.7 57.8%, DeepSeek-R1 53.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 32B and DeepSeek-R1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Sonnet 3.7 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?

Claude Sonnet 3.7 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 32B and 128,000 for DeepSeek-R1. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 32B up to 16,384, Claude Sonnet 3.7 up to 64,000, DeepSeek-R1 up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 32B accepts text; Claude Sonnet 3.7 accepts text, images and PDFs; DeepSeek-R1 accepts text. Claude Sonnet 3.7 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 32B and DeepSeek-R1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Sonnet 3.7 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Qwen3 32B is the newest, released Apr 29, 2025. Claude Sonnet 3.7 came out Feb 19, 2025; DeepSeek-R1 came out Jan 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 32B Apr 2025, Claude Sonnet 3.7 Oct 31, 2024, 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.