Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale vs QwQ-32B
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.7 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale scores higher in 2 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale leads 32.9 to 23.7.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.7 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-12-01 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.58 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.68 | — |
| Results tracked | 3 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| WeirdML | 46.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.9 (#73), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 52.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1324 |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1378 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1297 |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1308 |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.0 (#222), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1276 | 1257 |
| LMArena Text | — | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better than QwQ-32B?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.7 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or QwQ-32B better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and QwQ-32B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.