Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026

DeepSeek R1 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Name: DeepSeek R1 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares DeepSeek R1 (DeepSeek) and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. On preference Elo, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is ahead by 67 points (1,425 vs 1,358; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, DeepSeek R1 resolves 65.2% versus 65.2% (swebench (Aug 17, 2026)). Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B streams faster (110 tok/s) while Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the cheaper output token ($0.72/1M). Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the larger context window (131k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

DeepSeek

DeepSeek R1

Open-weights reasoning model trained with large-scale RL.

Elo 1,358$2.5/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Alibaba dedicated open-weight code generation model with near-frontier SWE-bench Verified coding capability.

Elo 1,425$0.72/1M out

DeepSeek R1 Inference Compute Profile

Inference-Time Compute & Reasoning EffortDynamic CoT

DeepSeek R1 Reasoning Scaler & Token Billing Simulator

Param: enable_reasoning

Reasoning models scale test-time compute by generating hidden chain-of-thought (CoT) tokens. These tokens are billed at standard output rates and directly expand latency (TTFT) in exchange for higher GPQA Diamond and SWE-bench Verified problem resolve rates.

Estimated TTFT

420 ms

1.0x (Standard eval)

CoT Thinking Tokens

~2,800

Billed as output tokens

Est. Cost / 1k Calls

$8.10

7.4x base invoice

STEM / SWE Boost

+6.5%

GPQA & SWE-bench scaling

Medium (Full RL CoT) Operational Profile

Standard large-scale RL reasoning trace with self-correction.

Direct Provider APIDeepSeek

"enable_reasoning": true

OpenRouter Unified APIUnified Gateway

"reasoning": {
  "effort": "medium",
  "max_tokens": 2800
}

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

DeepSeek R1 (1)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (8)

DeepSeek R1: 1W (11%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 8W (89%)

← DeepSeek R11 tiesQwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (3/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,358vs1,425

Coding Elo

—vs1,495

SWE-bench

65.2%vs65.2%

LiveBench

59%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

79.8%vs74%

DeepSeek R1: 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 3W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

62 tok/svs110 tok/s

Time to first token

420 msvs180 ms

DeepSeek R1: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$2.5/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$0.7/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

64kvs131k

DeepSeek R1: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 3W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageQwen 2.5 Coder 32B 4/6

Preference Elo

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

67 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

48 tok/s faster

Token Price Efficiency

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

$1.78/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,358

EloHigh is better

1,425+5%

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,495

LiveBench

High is better

59%

LiveBenchHigh is better

64.8%+10%

SWE-bench

High is better

65.2%

SWE-benchHigh is better

65.2%

GPQA

High is better

+8%79.8%

GPQAHigh is better

74%

TTFT

Low is better

420 ms

TTFTLow is better

180 ms+133%

Speed

High is better

62 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

110 tok/s+77%

In $

Low is better

$0.70 / 1M

In $Low is better

$0.18 / 1M+289%

Out $

Low is better

$2.50 / 1M

Out $Low is better

$0.72 / 1M+247%

Context

High is better

64k

ContextHigh is better

131k+105%

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 72% with Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

DeepSeek R1$62.00 / mo

In: $24.5Out: $37.5

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B$17.10 / mo

In: $6.3Out: $10.8

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is estimated to save $44.90/month ($539/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
DeepSeek R1:Pick DeepSeek R1 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when you are optimizing output cost.
3
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsDeepSeek R1

Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower TTFT (180 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Larger window (131k).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	DeepSeek R1	Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower TTFT (180 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Larger window (131k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchJan 20, 2025

DeepSeek R1 stays as the open-weights RL baseline

Jan 2025 reasoning model. Still searched. V4 Pro is the newer DeepSeek buy.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/deepseek-r1-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

DeepSeek

DeepSeek R1

Elo 1,358

LiveBench59%

SWE-bench65.2%

Speed62 tok/s

Output cost$2.5/1M

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Elo 1,425

LiveBench64.8%

SWE-bench65.2%

Speed110 tok/s

Output cost$0.72/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,425). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: DeepSeek R1 leads SWE-bench at 65.2% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $2.5/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the lower time-to-first-token (180 ms vs 420 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B accepts 131k tokens versus 64k.
Can I self-host either model?: Both DeepSeek R1 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B are marked open-weights. Hosting cost is not in this table.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. DeepSeek R1 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All DeepSeek R1 matchups →|All Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B matchups →

DeepSeek R1 vs DeepSeek V3 (previous deepseek)DeepSeek R1 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (next deepseek)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Plus (previous qwen)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3 235B (next qwen)DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

DeepSeek R1 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

DeepSeek R1 (1)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (8)

DeepSeek R1: 1W (11%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 8W (89%)

← DeepSeek R11 tiesQwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (3/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,358vs1,425

Coding Elo

—vs1,495

SWE-bench

65.2%vs65.2%

LiveBench

59%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

79.8%vs74%

DeepSeek R1: 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 3W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

62 tok/svs110 tok/s

Time to first token

420 msvs180 ms

DeepSeek R1: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$2.5/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$0.7/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

64kvs131k

DeepSeek R1: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 3W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsDeepSeek R1

Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower TTFT (180 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Larger window (131k).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	DeepSeek R1	Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower TTFT (180 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Larger window (131k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,425). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

DeepSeek R1 leads SWE-bench at 65.2% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $2.5/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the lower time-to-first-token (180 ms vs 420 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B accepts 131k tokens versus 64k.

Can I self-host either model?

Both DeepSeek R1 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B are marked open-weights. Hosting cost is not in this table.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. DeepSeek R1 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

DeepSeek R1 Reasoning Scaler & Token Billing Simulator

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

DeepSeek R1 stays as the open-weights RL baseline

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

DeepSeek R1

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

DeepSeek R1 Reasoning Scaler & Token Billing Simulator

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

DeepSeek R1 stays as the open-weights RL baseline

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

DeepSeek R1

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons