Model Comparison
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
vs. Small 3.2
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Mistral
Recommended Pick
De V3.2 (Non-reasoning) 16 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Small 3.2
100.0 value score
34.9 reasoning / $0.13/1M
Lowest Price
Small 3.2
$0.09/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
47.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
34.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Small 3.2 has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Small 3.2 is 5.7x cheaper on input tokens than V3.2 (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) leads Small 3.2 by 12.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) leads Small 3.2 by 21.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) wins 16 measurable categories, including TTFT, Latency, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Small 3.2
Mistral
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V3.2 (Non-reasoning) | Mi Small 3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.50/1M | $0.09/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.60/1M | $0.25/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.78/1M | $0.13/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Mistral |
| Release Date | Dec 1, 2025 | Jun 20, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 132.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 369ms |
| Latency | — | 369ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 22.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 47.1 | 34.9 |
| Intelligence | 32.1 | 15.1 |
| Coding | 34.6 | 13.3 |
| Math | 59.0 | 27.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.1% | 50.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.7% | 68.1% |
| HLE | 10.5% | 4.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 59.3% | 27.5% |
| MATH 500 | — | 88.3% |
| AIME 2025 | 59.0% | 27.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 32.3% |
| SciCode | 38.7% | 26.4% |
| LCR | 39.0% | 17.3% |
| IFBench | 49.0% | 33.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 78.9% | 29.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 32.6% | 6.8% |
Key Takeaways
Small 3.2 offers the best value at $0.09/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 47.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) reaches a 34.6 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
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Small 3.2
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
