Model Comparison
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
De V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) 7 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA
Lowest Price
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
43.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
31.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B by 14.5 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) wins 7 measurable categories, including Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA, MMLU Pro.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) | Al Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.27/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.00/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Sep 22, 2025 | Nov 11, 2024 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | — |
| TTFT | — | — |
| Latency | — | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 43.9 | 29.4 |
| Intelligence | 28.5 | 12.9 |
| Coding | 31.9 | — |
| Math | 53.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.1% | 41.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.6% | 63.5% |
| HLE | 8.4% | 3.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 52.9% | 29.5% |
| MATH 500 | — | 76.7% |
| AIME 2025 | 53.7% | — |
| AIME (Original) | — | 12.0% |
| SciCode | 32.1% | 27.1% |
| LCR | 43.3% | — |
| IFBench | 41.2% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 37.1% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.8% | — |
Key Takeaways
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B offers the best value at $0.00/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 43.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning) reaches a 31.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V3.1 Terminus (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
