Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Qwen Plus

DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 16 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1

DeepSeek

42.8

Rank #108 Confirmed

Qwen Plus

Alibaba (Qwen)

37.1

Rank #210 Confirmed

Summary

They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen Plus in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where DeepSeek-V3.1 leads 43.7 to 27.4.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 53.2% for DeepSeek-V3.1 and 63.3% for Qwen Plus.
DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.95 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
DeepSeek-V3.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1 and Qwen Plus specifications
	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
Provider	DeepSeek	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	42.8	37.1
Released	2025-08-21	2024-01-25
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	164K	1M
Max output	8K	33K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.25	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$0.95	$1.20
Results tracked	27	20

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding	1417	1328
WeirdML	38.4%	—

Reasoning Too close to call

DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
Kagi LLM Benchmark	53.2%	63.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1417	1317
DTBench	82.7%	81.1%
LMCA	24.3%	24%
SimpleBench	40%	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	139.92	—
ForecastBench	58	—

Math DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Math	1420	1326
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	17.8%
MATH Level 5	—	65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	1.7%

Knowledge DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Expert	1405	1328
GPQA Diamond	—	48.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	5.5%	—

Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English	1400	1310
LMArena Chinese	1469	1347
LMArena Japanese	1378	1251
LMArena Russian	1405	1323
LMArena French	1447	—
LMArena German	1411	—
LMArena Korean	1337	—
LMArena Spanish	1431	—

Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following	1400	1303

Long Context Qwen Plus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query	1422	1324
Fiction.LiveBench	52.8%	—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	DeepSeek-V3.1	Qwen Plus
LMArena Text	1420	1326
LMArena Creative Writing	1401	1293
LMArena Multi-Turn	1408	1336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1436	—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than Qwen Plus?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or Qwen Plus?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.95 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or Qwen Plus better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.3 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and Qwen Plus share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.