Qwen Plus vs DeepSeek R1
Performance benchmarks + pricing comparison — updated April 2026
Qwen Plus
QwenBalanced Qwen model for general tasks. Good price-performance ratio.
| Input | $0.400/M |
| Output | $1.20/M |
| Context | 128K tokens |
| Best For | General-purpose tasks, bilingual coding |
| Benchmark | 55/100 |
DeepSeek R1
DeepSeekDeepSeek's reasoning model. Open-weight model that rivals o1 for complex reasoning tasks.
| Input | $0.140/M |
| Output | $0.550/M |
| Context | 128K tokens |
| Best For | Math, coding, science reasoning at low cost |
Cost Comparison by Scenario
Estimated cost per project with 30% cache hit rate. Actual costs may vary based on usage patterns.
| Scenario | Qwen Plus | DeepSeek R1 | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Script (1K lines) | $0.05 | $0.02 | DeepSeek R1 saves $0.03 (57%) |
| Medium Feature (10K lines) | $0.38 | $0.16 | DeepSeek R1 saves $0.22 (58%) |
| Large Project (50K lines) | $1.90 | $0.80 | DeepSeek R1 saves $1.10 (58%) |
| Code Review (5K lines) | $0.10 | $0.04 | DeepSeek R1 saves $0.06 (62%) |
Verdict
DeepSeek R1 wins on both price and performance — $0.140/M input with a benchmark score of N/A/100.
For most developers, this is the clear choice between these two models.
Compare with Other Models
Claude Sonnet 4
AnthropicAnthropic's balanced model for coding and general tasks. Best price-performance ratio in the Claude family.
Claude Opus 4
AnthropicAnthropic's most powerful model. Best for complex reasoning and challenging coding tasks.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
AnthropicPrevious generation Sonnet. Still excellent for coding tasks at the same price point.
Claude 3.5 Haiku
AnthropicFast, cost-effective model for high-volume tasks. Great for code review and simple queries.
Claude 3 Opus
AnthropicFirst generation Opus. Highest reasoning capability in the Claude 3 family.
Claude 3 Sonnet
AnthropicFirst generation Sonnet. Balanced performance for general tasks.