Model comparison
DeepSeek V3.2 vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 17
- Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.01 versus 55.4. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V3.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V3.2 | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V3.217.1 | Margin← 10.7 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V3.260.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 22.100%B 8.481%Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 13.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.100%B 0.000%Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 0.000%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3.2 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3.2128K | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 10.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.5% | — | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V3.2 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1206 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 49.0% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.01 to 55.4. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 22.100% and 8.481%.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 17.1 versus 6.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.