Qwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Too close to call on our weighted score (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 67, Qwen3.8 27B 66). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 27B
66/100- ECI151.8
- Price$0.40 / $2.55
- Context262K
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
67/100- ECI155.9
- Price$0.66 / $1.98
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 67/100, Qwen3.8 27B 66/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 for raw capability and Qwen3.8 27B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 155.9 · Qwen3.8 27B 151.8
- Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.938 · DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 $0.99 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video · DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 27B | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 79 | 84 |
| Price | 25% | 49 | 48 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 70 | 45 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 66/100 | 67/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 151.8 | 155.9 (best) |
| ECI rank | #54 of 165 | #35 of 165 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 91.7% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 64.6% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 98.6% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 52.9% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.40 (best) | $0.66 |
| Output | $2.55 | $1.98 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.022 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.938 (best) | $0.99 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 49 providers | Official DeepSeek API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 384,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | deepseek-v4-pro |
| API providers | 53 (best) | 40 |
| Released | Aug 14, 2026 | Aug 13, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3.8 27B$9.10
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813$10.56
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 67/100, Qwen3.8 27B 66/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 for raw capability and Qwen3.8 27B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.55 output per million tokens (median across 49 API providers). DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 costs $0.66 input / $1.98 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.938 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $0.99 for DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 155.9 (#35 of 165) and Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (154.2–158.1 vs 149.9–153.6), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 27B and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 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 Pro 0813 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 up to 384,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video; DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 accepts text. Qwen3.8 27B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 came out Aug 13, 2026.
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 Inkling SmallThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling SmallThinking Machines · ECI 150.5
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Mistral Large 4Mistral AI · ECI 150.6
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGoogle · ECI 152.0
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle · ECI 154.7
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 156.2
- DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Muse Spark 1.2Meta · ECI 155.2
