Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale vs Qwen Plus
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen Plus leads 52.2 to 46.0.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.58 / $1.68 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.7 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2025-12-01 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.58 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.68 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 40.4 (#140), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 46.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1328 |
Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.9 (#73), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 52.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1317 |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1328 |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1323 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1303 |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1324 |
Writing & Preference Qwen Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.0 (#222), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1293 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1276 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1336 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better than Qwen Plus?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale lists at $0.58 and $1.68.
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or Qwen Plus better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and Qwen Plus share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.