The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs QwQ-32B

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 14.8.

DeepSeek · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 14.8, ranking #12 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.8 and ranks #12 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose QwQ-32B

  • you are already invested in the Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
51.8
#12
14.8
#231
48.9
#17
15.6
#222
44.4
#5
10.3
#163
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.22 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.66 / M
— / M
Context window
1,040,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
QwQ-32B
35.2#43
18.1#186
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

20 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash · 7 for QwQ-32B

1 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while QwQ-32B is better at 0 benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Sep 11 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

730.7B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash has 730.7B more parameters than QwQ-32B, making it 2248.3% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
763.2Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
32.5Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
32.5B
QwQ-32B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash specifies input context (1,040,000 tokens). Only DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash specifies output context (393,216 tokens).

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Input1,040,000 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Sep 11 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas QwQ-32B does not.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

QwQ-32B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is licensed under MIT, while QwQ-32B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

MIT

Open weights

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash was released on 2026-09-10, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is 18 months newer than QwQ-32B.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Sep 10, 2026

0 days ago

1.5yr newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

QwQ-32B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-11-28, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm QwQ-32B's training data extends to 2024-11-28, but cannot make a direct comparison without DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash's cutoff date.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and QwQ-32B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
✓ Preferred
QwQ-32B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs QwQ-32B.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash or QwQ-32B?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 14.8. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is made by DeepSeek and QwQ-32B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash compare to QwQ-32B in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash scores CodeForces: 100.0%, GPQA: 90.9%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 90.6%, BabyVision: 89.6%, CyberGym: 88.1%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and QwQ-32B?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash supports 1.0M tokens and QwQ-32B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and QwQ-32B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.8 vs 14.8), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and QwQ-32B?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is developed by DeepSeek and QwQ-32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.