Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen1.5-32B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

52.8

Rank #38 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 57.9 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 89.8% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
ProviderDeepSeekAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index52.830.5
Released2026-09-092024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output393K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.60—
Results tracked3721

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding15061155
LMArena WebDev1619—
SciCode51.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench1,092—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents39.5%—
GDP.pdf19.8%—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14831130
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
CritPt14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles43%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA47%—
Surface Evolver Bench46.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.9—

Math DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14771155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)67.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%—
ProofBench54%—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond89.8%30.7%
LMArena Expert15061126
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1277—
Furniture Assembly34.2%—

Multilingual DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14481106
LMArena Chinese14971177
LMArena French14521101
LMArena German14841058
LMArena Japanese14121027
LMArena Korean14521008
LMArena Russian14711073
LMArena Spanish14591089

Instruction Following DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14741116

Long Context DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14751146

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14621137
LMArena Creative Writing14351083
LMArena Multi-Turn14571140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1540—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen1.5-32B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.9 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper