# DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

> DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v3-1-vs-qwen3-6-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Flash in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 24.3% for DeepSeek-V3.1 and 31% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Both cost about the same: $0.25 input and $0.95 output per million tokens.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.8 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 108 | 182 |
| Context | 164K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.25 | $0.19 |
| Output $/M | $0.95 | $1.13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 38.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 40% | 35.2% |
| DTBench | 82.7% | 77.1% |
| LMCA | 24.3% | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.92 | 143.26 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1417 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| ForecastBench | 58 | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.5% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1405 | — |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | — |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1431 | — |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 52.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.1 lists at $0.25 and $0.95.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.