Data points: 40
The readout for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Qwen3, before the detailed comparison sheet.
Decision read
Qwen3
Qwen3 currently has the stronger profile, with verified wins split 0 to 3.
Evidence depth
40 data points
Includes 8 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 0 provider examples.
Selection signal
Start with Qwen3
The charts below split 8 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.
Switch either side of this report to compare another model with the same LMSpeed data pipeline.
Select a different model to open a new comparison URL.
Model compare DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Qwen3deepseek-v3-2-exp-vs-qwen3 | Model A DeepSeek V3.2 Exp | Model B Qwen3 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall leader | Contender | Leading |
| Verified metric wins | 0 wins | 3 wins |
| Where it leads | No data |
Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.
Compare benchmark category scores on a 0-100 scale. Select a category to inspect the gap.
Avg. score
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
51.5
Avg. score
Qwen3
63.6
Selected category
Coding
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp leads by 6.7
Metric-level scores with benchmark source, rank depth, confidence, error, and evaluation date where available.
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner$0.420/M
Rank #17/138 · confidence 4
Qwen3
$0.800/M
Rank #28/138 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner$0.315/M
Rank #26/138 · confidence 4
Qwen3
$0.350/M
Rank #28/138 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
$0.280/M
Rank #39/138 · confidence 4
Qwen3
winner$0.200/M
Rank #27/138 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner83.6%
Rank #34/113 · confidence 4
Qwen3
77.7%
Rank #70/113 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner8.6%
Rank #73/150 · confidence 4
Qwen3
6.8%
Rank #87/150 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner73.8%
Rank #79/152 · confidence 4
Qwen3
65.9%
Rank #102/152 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner55.4%
Rank #53/108 · confidence 4
Qwen3
51.5%
Rank #58/108 · confidence 4
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
winner39.9%
Rank #53/149 · confidence 4
Qwen3
30.4%
Rank #110/149 · confidence 4
Latest completed audits from shared providers, with four safety and integrity score groups plus report links.
| Provider | DeepSeek V3.2 Exp | Qwen3 |
|---|---|---|
| No completed audits are available from shared providers yet. | ||
Speed aggregates and input/output pricing share each provider row for real API selection and migration cost checks.
| Provider | DeepSeek V3.2 Exp | Qwen3 |
|---|---|---|
| No shared provider examples are available yet. | ||
This report only uses LMSpeed data for DeepSeek V3.2 Exp and Qwen3: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.
| Guidance | DeepSeek V3.2 Exp | Qwen3 |
|---|---|---|
| When to choose each model | DeepSeek V3.2 Exp DeepSeek V3.2 Exp does not clearly lead on the verified metrics here, so check provider-specific pricing before choosing. | Qwen3 Qwen3 is stronger when you prioritize Free providers, Provider coverage, Recent tests. |
TL;DR: Qwen3 leads across 40 verifiable data points, including pricing, speed, latency, benchmarks, and provider examples.
Continue from DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Qwen3 into nearby model comparisons with enough verified LMSpeed data.
| Free providers, Provider coverage, Recent tests |
| Model metadata | DeepSeek V3.2 Exp exposes 163.8K tokens; notable signals: Text input, Text output, Tool calling, Structured outputs. | Qwen3 exposes 262.1K tokens; notable signals: Text input, Text output, Tool calling, Structured outputs. |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | No data |
| Context window | 163.8K tokens | 262.1K tokens |
| Max output | 65.5K tokens | 16.4K tokens |
| Released | No data | Jul 2025 |
| Modalities | Input Text Output Text | Input Text Output Text |
| Features | Text inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning | Text inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON mode |
| Parameters | No data | 235B / 22B active |
| Tokenizer | DeepSeek | Qwen3 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-07-31 | 2025-06-30 |
| OpenRouter ID | deepseek/deepseek-v3.2-exp | qwen/qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 |
| References | No data | No data |
Rankings are based on community-submitted tests and periodic health probes. Advisory only, not official data.