Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus vs Qwen3.6 27B

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Qwen3.6 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 42.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus DeepSeek

43.1

Rank #97 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads 61.0 to 50.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 28.6% for DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and 34.5% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is cheaper at $0.27 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 164K.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
ProviderDeepSeekAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.142.2
Released2025-09-222026-04-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K262K
Max output147K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.27$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$1$3.60
Results tracked1611

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 42.0 (#113), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
SciCode40.6%37.3%
LMArena Coding1426—
ALE-Bench745.17—

Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 26.4 (#133), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
CritPt1.7%0.9%
DTBench81.3%78.1%
LMCA28.6%34.5%
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%—
Chess Puzzles—22%
LMArena Hard Prompts1426—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
Epoch Capabilities Index—146.5

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 38.5 (#137), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
LMArena Math1402—

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond—85.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.1 (#92), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1407—
LMArena Russian1436—

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.0 (#106), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following1404—

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.4 (#97), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1421—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.0 (#92), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1419—
LMArena Creative Writing1403—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1411—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better than Qwen3.6 27B?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Qwen3.6 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (43.1 vs 42.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Qwen3.6 27B?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is cheaper. It lists at $0.27 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Qwen3.6 27B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper