# DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 52.8 to 22.4.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 32.9 |
| Rank | 40 | 239 |
| Context | 1M | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1511 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1620 | — |
| SciCode | 51.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,092 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1485 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.01 | 119.41 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 89.6% | — |
| CritPt | 14.3% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 47% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 46.3% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1493 | 1251 |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1505 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1452 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1506 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1473 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1499 | — |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1476 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1465 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1436 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1540 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

### Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.