Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 6 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 22.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 36.7% for DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and 74.8% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper at $0.26 / $0.38 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.60 for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.3 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2025-09-29 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.26 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.38 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 49 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 46.5 (#65), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 38.9% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1473 |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 70% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1362 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 59% | — |
| WeirdML | 39.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 32.7 (#59), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 39.6% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 21.3% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.7% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
| TheAgentCompany | 42.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,034 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 22.1 (#208), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 36.7% | 74.8% |
| CritPt | 2.9% | 9.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 14% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1434 | 1460 |
| DTBench | 87.7% | 84% |
| LMCA | 29.1% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.27 | 147.37 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 57% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 65% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 41.7 (#87), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 87.8% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1435 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 57.7% | — |
| ProofBench | 8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 22.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 51.7 (#66), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.4% | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1436 | 1467 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 52.2 (#90), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1461 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1473 |
| LMArena German | 1440 | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1374 | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | 1371 | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | 1424 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1440 | 1457 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 74.5 (#93), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1413 | 1440 |
Long Context DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 47.6 (#16), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | 1455 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| CL-bench | 13.2% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 9.5% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp: 62.4 (#77), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1425 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1403 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1427 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1515 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 44.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or Qwen3.7 Plus?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp is cheaper. It lists at $0.26 per million input tokens and $0.38 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.60.
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.5 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp has 49 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.