Model Comparison
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
vs. Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
De V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) 6 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
56.0 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
38.7 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 V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort).
Reasoning gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) leads Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B by 26.6 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) wins 6 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
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 V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) | Al Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.14/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.28/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 24, 2026 | Nov 11, 2024 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 113.7 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1038ms | — |
| Latency | 50417ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 56.0 | 29.4 |
| Intelligence | 46.5 | 12.9 |
| Coding | 38.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 89.4% | 41.7% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 63.5% |
| HLE | 32.1% | 3.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 29.5% |
| MATH 500 | — | 76.7% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 12.0% |
| SciCode | 44.9% | 27.1% |
| LCR | 63.0% | — |
| IFBench | 79.2% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 95.0% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 35.6% | — |
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.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.0 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort) reaches a 38.7 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
V4 Flash (Reasoning, Max Effort)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
