Model comparison

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs QwQ-32B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

50.3

Rank #40 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 46.2 to 22.9.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and QwQ-32B specifications
DeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
ProviderDeepSeekAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.339.4
Released2026-09-092024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output393K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.60—
Results tracked2536

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: 52.8 (#29), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding15111333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1620—
SciCode51.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench1,092—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14851326
Epoch Capabilities Index155.01137.6
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
CritPt14.3%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench89.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA47%—
Surface Evolver Bench46.3%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14931359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
ProofBench54%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert15051323
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multilingual DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14521306
LMArena Chinese15061378
LMArena French14481337
LMArena Russian14731297
LMArena Spanish14991353
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278

Instruction Following DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14751297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14761308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14651329
LMArena Creative Writing14361288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing15401257
LMArena Multi-Turn14601314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

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

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper