QwQ 32B vs DeepSeek-V3.1
Too close to call on our weighted score (DeepSeek-V3.1 55, QwQ 32B 53). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
DeepSeekDeepSeek-V3.1
55/100- ECI139.9
- Price$0.385 / $1.25
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
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 sameQwQ 32B 131,072 · DeepSeek-V3.1 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwQ 32B: Text · DeepSeek-V3.1: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | QwQ 32B | DeepSeek-V3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 62 | 65 |
| Price | 25% | 56 | 60 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 55/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | DeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.6 | 139.9 (best) |
| ECI rank | #109 of 148 | #100 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 59.2% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.66 | $0.385 (best) |
| Output | $1.00 (best) | $1.25 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.745 | $0.601 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 8 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenMIT License |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 8 (best) |
| Released | Mar 5, 2025 | Aug 21, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- QwQ 32B$8.60
- DeepSeek-V3.1$6.35
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QwQ 32B or DeepSeek-V3.1?
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, QwQ 32B or DeepSeek-V3.1?
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 QwQ 32B and DeepSeek-V3.1 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?
QwQ 32B and DeepSeek-V3.1 share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, DeepSeek-V3.1 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QwQ 32B accepts text; DeepSeek-V3.1 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.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-4.1 miniThree-way comparison
- QwQ 32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- QwQ 32B vs DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek · ECI 139.0
- QwQ 32B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 138.2
- DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
