DeepSeek R1
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
DeepSeek R1 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare DeepSeek R1 by DeepSeek against Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B by Qwen, context windows of 128K vs 262K, tested across 52 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, DeepSeek R1 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
DeepSeek R1 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. DeepSeek R1 costs $0.55/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 128K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between DeepSeek R1 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
DeepSeek R1 is made by deepseek while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. DeepSeek R1 has a 128K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, DeepSeek R1 costs $0.55/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
DeepSeek R1Runner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the edge — bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
95%
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B uses 5.3x more emoji
DeepSeek R1
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
62%Vocabulary54%
15wSentence Length14w
0.52Hedging0.39
8.0Bold6.9
5.7Lists4.2
0.04Emoji0.23
0.62Headings0.93
0.28Transitions0.17
Based on 22 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.
We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.
Free preview13 of 58 slides
FAQ