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 | 32k |
| 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. | $0.27SiliconFlow | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.00SiliconFlow | — |
| $104SiliconFlow · fp8 | — | |
| 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. | 74.9% | 50% |
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. | 68.4% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | 57.8% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.7% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 22 2025 | Nov 28 2024 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsClaude Haiku 5.5QwQ-32B-PreviewvsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGPT-6.1 SolQwQ-32B-PreviewvsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGemini 4 ArgonQwQ-32B-PreviewvsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMuse Spark OpenQwQ-32B-PreviewvsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGrok 4.7QwQ-32B-PreviewvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMistral Large 4QwQ-32B-PreviewvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads QwQ-32B-Preview on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (LiveCodeBench). QwQ-32B-Preview shipped 298 days before DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus has 671B parameters, while QwQ-32B-Preview has 32B. Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus) vs 32k (QwQ-32B-Preview).
On LiveCodeBench, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads at 74.9% vs QwQ-32B-Preview at 50%.