Compare / Qwen3-32B vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
Qwen3-32B vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 26 results on 5 sources that measured both models.
Of the 26 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs DeepSeek, every model from both labs.
Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp? The short answer
Pick DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 16.6 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 33% less per token.
- Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $0.30 per million tokens, 33% less.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 16.6 against 8.6.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is newer: released 29 Sep 2025, against 28 Apr 2025 for Qwen3-32B.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3-32B | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.14 in · $0.40 out | $0.27 in · $0.41 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.21 | $0.30 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8) | – |
| Intelligence Index | 8.6 | 16.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 163,840 tokens |
| Released | 28 Apr 2025 | 29 Sep 2025 (newer) |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Developer based in | China | China |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3-32B | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 105 of 387 measured | 1,347 | 1,425thinking reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 104 of 380 measured | 1,340 | 1,422 |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 79 of 385 measured | 1,304 | 1,410 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 188 · 119 of 243 measured | 8.6thinking reasoning | 16.6thinking reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 110 of 231 measured | 66.8%thinking reasoning | 79.7%thinking reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 168 · 126 of 242 measured | 7.4%thinking reasoning | 14.9%thinking reasoning |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results | ||
| Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 12 of 81 measured | 48.7%bfcl fc | 56.7%thinking reasoning, bfcl prompt |
| Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 8 of 81 measured | 82.4%bfcl prompt | 93.2%bfcl fc |
| Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 7 of 81 measured | 26.7%bfcl fc | 54.2%bfcl fc |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 134 · 64 of 230 measured | 33.0no reasoning | 54.0thinking reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 99 · 147 of 230 measured | 19.0%no reasoning | 25.0%thinking reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 175 · 113 of 230 measured | 0.32no reasoning | 0.35no reasoning |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results | ||
| Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 24 · 15 of 104 measured | 5.9% | 5.3% |
| Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 17 · 85 of 104 measured | 99.9% | 96.6% |
Show all 26 results (12 more)
| Measure | Qwen3-32B | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 99 of 338 measured | 1,398 | 1,449thinking reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 98 of 387 measured | 1,331 | 1,416thinking reasoning |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 90 of 386 measured | 1,308 | 1,411 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 93 of 195 measured | 36.3%thinking reasoning | 54.2%thinking reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 222 · 96 of 233 measured | 0.0%no reasoning | 72.3%thinking reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 169 · 65 of 190 measured | 3.0%thinking reasoning | 31.1%thinking reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 126 of 193 measured | 29.8%thinking reasoning | 33.9%no reasoning |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results | ||
| Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 17 · 21 of 81 measured | 47.9%bfcl fc | 44.9%thinking reasoning, bfcl prompt |
| Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 8 of 81 measured | 93.8%bfcl fc | 93.8%thinking reasoning, bfcl prompt |
| Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 33 of 81 measured | 90.3%bfcl prompt | 85.5%thinking reasoning, bfcl prompt |
| Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 29 of 81 measured | 82.0%bfcl fc | 76.0%thinking reasoning, bfcl prompt |
| Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 14 of 81 measured | 26.0%bfcl prompt | 69.5%bfcl fc |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3-32B better than DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
Pick DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 16.6 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 33% less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $0.30 per million tokens, 33% less.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp ranks 72 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 113 for Qwen3-32B.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp ranks 106 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 148 for Qwen3-32B.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp ranks 71 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 139 for Qwen3-32B.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
Qwen3-32B ranks 22 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 40 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-32B or DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 163,840 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-32B.
Run Qwen3-32B and DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.