Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 671B | 32B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 128k | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.50DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.15DeepInfra | — |
| $208DeepInfra · fp4 | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 73.3% | 63.4% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 8% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 57.6% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 81% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Qwen |
| Release date | May 28 2025 | Mar 6 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek R1-0528vsClaude Haiku 5.5QwQ-32BvsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek R1-0528vsGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32BvsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek R1-0528vsGemini 4 ArgonQwQ-32BvsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek R1-0528vsMuse Spark OpenQwQ-32BvsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek R1-0528vsGrok 4.7QwQ-32BvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek R1-0528vsMistral Large 4QwQ-32BvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek R1-0528 leads QwQ-32B on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (LiveCodeBench). QwQ-32B shipped 83 days before DeepSeek R1-0528, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek R1-0528 has 671B parameters, while QwQ-32B has 32B. Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek R1-0528) vs 128k (QwQ-32B).
On LiveCodeBench, DeepSeek R1-0528 leads at 73.3% vs QwQ-32B at 63.4%.