Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V3.2
57
Qwen3.5 397B
63
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #19
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+0.6 difference
DeepSeek V3.2
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.28 / $0.42
$0.6 / $3.6
35 t/s
96 t/s
3.75s
2.44s
128K
128K
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 8.6x on output cost alone.
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 57.
DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 60.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.