download dots

Qwen vs DeepSeek

Qwen and DeepSeek are the two open-weight families most teams end up choosing between in 2026, and they are structured very differently. Qwen publishes Apache 2.0 weights at Qwen3.6 while selling a separate, more advanced API-only line whose model list changes by region. DeepSeek publishes one generation, V4, under MIT for both code and weights. Route both inside Taskade Genesis.

Last updated: August 2026

Quick Comparison Table

Feature Qwen (Alibaba) DeepSeek
Open weights Qwen3.6-27B (dense), Qwen3.6-35B-A3B (mixture-of-experts, multimodal), plus the Qwen3.5 ladder DeepSeek V4 — the same models it runs
Open licence Apache 2.0, no size exceptions MIT — code and weights
API-only tiers Every -max, -plus, -flash tier. No Qwen3.7 weights exist None — the API models are the open models
Generation split 🔴 Open weights and API tiers are different generations One generation, V4
Live API ids Region-dependent (see below) deepseek-v4-flash, deepseek-v4-pro
Multimodal Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has a vision encoder for image and video, in open weights Text and reasoning in production; vision only via the experimental deepseek-v4-flash-vision-exp
Context (open weights) 262,144 native, ~1,010,000 via YaRN 1M native, max output 384K
Coding line Qwen3-Coder (no 3.5 or 3.6 coder exists) No separate coder — reasoning effort dial in V4
Entry API price per 1M qwen3.6-flash $0.25 in / $1.50 out (international) deepseek-v4-flash $0.44 in / $1.32 out peak, $0.22 / $0.66 off-peak
Top API price per 1M qwen3.7-max $2.50 in / $7.50 out (international) deepseek-v4-pro $1.32 in / $3.96 out peak, $0.66 / $1.98 off-peak
Inside Taskade ✅ Routed with 15+ models ✅ Routed with 15+ models

What TSK-1 Found

TSK-1 hasn't run these two head-to-head yet; here's what public benchmarks show. Qwen's open-weight models have not appeared in any TSK-1 build (Qwen is listed as available in the dataset), while DeepSeek V4 has been tested several times. DeepSeek V4 Flash built the best-looking app of its test (Aug 1, 2026), and on Aug 3, 2026 it was the cheapest, the fastest, and the cleanest all at once. Until TSK-1 runs Qwen, the comparison rests on published vendor benchmarks and licence terms, not on a real build we ran and opened ourselves.

  • DeepSeek: Aug 1, 2026 — best-looking app of its test. Aug 3, 2026 — cheapest, fastest, and cleanest all at once. Aug 6, 2026 — best at holding your information (60 separate fields captured).
  • Qwen: Not yet benchmarked in TSK-1: available status only.

See the full evidence at /tsk/deepseek, /tsk/qwen, and the TSK-1 hub.


The Distinction That Decides Everything

Qwen's open weights and Qwen's API tiers are different generations of model. Every tier whose name ends in -max, -plus, or -flash is proprietary and API-only, and the open ladder sits a generation behind it. DeepSeek does not work that way: the models it runs are the models it publishes, all under MIT.

Get that wrong and everything downstream is wrong — the licence you think you have, the model you think you can self-host, and the price you think you are paying.

TL;DR: Qwen publishes Apache 2.0 weights at Qwen3.6 (a 27B dense model and a multimodal 35B-A3B mixture-of-experts) while selling a separate, more advanced API-only line whose lineup differs between the international and China mainland endpoints. DeepSeek publishes one generation, V4, under MIT for code and weights, at $0.44 / $1.32 per million tokens on Flash at peak and half that off-peak (rates as of August 2026). Route both inside Taskade Genesis rather than standardising on one.


What Ships Open, and What Only Ships as an API

Open, with downloadable weights under Apache 2.0:

  • Qwen3.6-27B — dense.
  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B — Mixture-of-Experts, 35B total and 3B used per token, and multimodal via a vision encoder that handles both images and video.
  • The Qwen3.5 ladder — 397B-A17B, 122B-A10B, 35B-A3B, 27B, 9B, 4B, 2B, and 0.8B, which is an unusually complete range of sizes.

Proprietary, API-only: qwen3.7-max, qwen3.7-plus, qwen3.6-flash, qwen3.5-omni-plus, and every other -max / -plus / -flash tier. No Qwen3.7 weights exist in the official Hugging Face organisation, so do not describe those tiers as open.

Alibaba's own wording on the open half is unambiguous: "All our open-weight models are licensed under Apache 2.0."


Region Changes the Model List

There is no single global Qwen lineup, and quoting one is the fastest way to send a reader to a model they cannot call.

Endpoint Top tier Mid tier Fast tier
International (Singapore) Model Studio qwen3.7-max qwen3.7-plus qwen3.6-flash
China mainland qwen3.8-max qwen3.7-plus qwen3.7-flash

Mainland runs ahead of international, and mainland token prices are lower. Always name the region alongside the model.


What Runs on the DeepSeek Side in August 2026

DeepSeek moved a whole generation this summer, and a lot of published guidance is now describing endpoints that no longer answer.

  • V3 and R1 are gone, and there is no R2. The current generation is V4.
  • deepseek-chat and deepseek-reasoner were retired and became inaccessible on 24 July 2026.
  • The two production ids are deepseek-v4-flash and deepseek-v4-pro, plus an experimental deepseek-v4-flash-vision-exp on Flash's rate card.
  • Reasoning is a mode, not a model. deepseek-v4-flash exposes reasoning effort at low, high, and max.
  • Parameters: deepseek-v4-pro is 1.6T total with 49B used per token. deepseek-v4-flash is roughly 284–304B total with 13B used per token — vendor sources disagree on the total, so treat it as a range.

Licences: Apache 2.0 vs MIT

Qwen open weights DeepSeek V4
Licence Apache 2.0, no size exceptions MIT
Covers the weights ✅ Yes ✅ Yes
Covers the repository code ✅ Yes ✅ Yes, explicitly
Commercial use ✅ Permitted ✅ Permitted
Redistribute fine-tunes ✅ Permitted with attribution ✅ Permitted, retain notice and state changes
Monthly-active-user cap None None
Applies to every model in the family 🔴 No — only the open ladder ✅ Yes

Both are genuinely permissive, and both are a different universe from a closed frontier model, where self-hosting and on-prem data residency are simply not purchasable at any price. The practical difference is coverage: MIT covers everything DeepSeek ships, while Apache 2.0 covers only the half of Qwen that ships as weights.


Benchmarks: What We Can Actually Cite

The published benchmark for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is SWE-bench Verified 73.4% and MMLU-Pro 85.2% — notable because that is a 35B-total model activating 3B parameters per token, not a frontier-scale one.

We are deliberately not printing a benchmark table pitting the two families against each other. Scores move between point releases, vendors publish under different harnesses, and a comparison page that quotes a stale leaderboard does more harm than an honest gap. Run your own evaluation on your own prompts before you commit a pipeline to either.


Price per Million Tokens

International Model Studio for Qwen (mainland is lower), published DeepSeek API rates for V4.

Model Input Output
deepseek-v4-flash — peak $0.44 (cache hit $0.014) $1.32
deepseek-v4-flash — off-peak $0.22 (cache hit $0.007) $0.66
deepseek-v4-pro — peak $1.32 (cache hit $0.044) $3.96
deepseek-v4-pro — off-peak $0.66 (cache hit $0.022) $1.98
qwen3.6-flash (intl) $0.25 up to 256K, $1.00 from 256K–1M $1.50 / $4.00
qwen3.7-plus (intl) $0.40 up to 256K, $1.20 from 256K–1M $1.60 / $4.80
qwen3.7-max (intl) $2.50 $7.50

Two things to hold on to. First, Qwen's commercial tiers price in context bands — cross 256K and the input rate roughly triples on qwen3.6-flash, which changes the economics of long-document work more than the headline number suggests. Second, DeepSeek prices on a clock — off-peak is exactly half of peak, and peak covers only 01:00 to 04:00 and 06:00 to 10:00 UTC on weekdays. Batch work you can schedule outside those windows costs half without changing a line of code. Every figure in this table is the rate published as of August 2026.

A third point worth its own line: on DeepSeek a cache hit is roughly 31× below a cache miss on flash and exactly 30× below on pro, at either clock rate, which is a far bigger lever than choosing between the two models. Qwen's cached-input prices for the commercial tiers are not published in a form we can cite, so no equivalent figure appears for them above.


The Routing Matrix

Pick per task, and keep the cost consequence in the same view as the capability.

Task Reach for Why Cost consequence
Cheap high-volume classification deepseek-v4-flash Lowest published rate of the two families $0.44 in / $1.32 out per 1M at peak, $0.22 / $0.66 off-peak
Repeated prompts over a fixed corpus deepseek-v4-flash with cache hits Stable prefix bills at $0.014 per 1M at peak, $0.007 off-peak Roughly 31x off the input side
Long-context reasoning, 1M tokens deepseek-v4-pro 1M native context, no scaling technique required $1.32 / $3.96 per 1M at peak — a 500K prompt is a real line item
Vision — image or video in the loop Qwen3.6-35B-A3B The multimodal model that also ships as open weights Self-host cost, or your provider's rate
Agentic coding Qwen3-Coder variants, or V4 at high effort Qwen keeps a dedicated coder line; DeepSeek uses one endpoint with a dial Coder-Next ~80B is far cheaper to run than 480B-A35B
Multilingual content Qwen commercial tiers, region-matched Alibaba's commercial line is the broader multilingual bet qwen3.7-plus $0.40 / $1.60 up to 256K, intl
On-prem, air-gap, data residency Qwen3.6-35B-A3B or deepseek-v4-flash Apache 2.0 and MIT both permit self-hosting outright Your GPU cost, no per-token bill
Smallest viable footprint Qwen3.5 ladder down to 0.8B Nothing else here goes that small Runs where a frontier model cannot
Overnight or weekend batch runs Either DeepSeek model, scheduled off-peak DeepSeek halves the rate outside peak hours 50% off input and output
A workflow that needs several of these Route across models No single family wins every row Allowance included in the subscription

Self-Host Reality Check

Both licences permit self-hosting. Hardware is what decides whether you actually will.

  • Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the realistic target. 35B total with only 3B used per token is the reason Qwen's open ladder shows up so often in on-prem deployments, and it is multimodal on top of that.
  • The Qwen3.5 ladder gives you an exit at every size — 397B-A17B at the top, 0.8B at the bottom. If a model does not fit your hardware, there is a smaller one with the same licence.
  • deepseek-v4-pro at 1.6T total is a serious commitment. deepseek-v4-flash at roughly 284–304B total and 13B used per token is the more approachable DeepSeek self-host, but it is still an order of magnitude above the practical Qwen target.

For most teams below serious scale, a managed gateway is cheaper and simpler than running either. The licence still matters even if you never self-host, because it is what makes the option available at all when a compliance requirement lands.


Choose DeepSeek If

A comparison that only flatters one side is not worth reading. DeepSeek is the better pick when:

  1. You want one licence covering everything you touch. MIT applies to the code and the weights, and the models DeepSeek runs are the models it publishes. There is no open-versus-commercial line to keep track of.
  2. You need a million tokens of context natively. Both V4 models carry it without a scaling technique, with a 384K maximum output.
  3. Per-token cost is the binding constraint. On published international rates, deepseek-v4-flash is the cheapest option on this page by a wide margin, and its cache-hit rate, at $0.014 per 1M at peak, is roughly 31x lower still.

Choose Qwen when you need vision in an open model, a specific parameter size that fits your hardware, a dedicated coding line, or a commercial multilingual tier — and when you are comfortable tracking which half of the family a given model belongs to.


The Taskade Angle: Route Across Labs, Not Between Them

Taskade routes across 15+ frontier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and open-weight providers inside a single workspace, with the AI allowance included in the subscription instead of an API account and a key per lab. Plans are Free, Pro $10/mo billed annually, Business $25/mo billed annually, Max $100/mo billed annually, and Enterprise $250/mo billed annually.

What that changes day to day:

  • Per-step model choice. Each agent or automation step picks its own model, so bulk extraction and final reasoning do not have to share a bill.
  • No account sprawl. One workspace instead of a separate console, key, and invoice for every lab.
  • Routing survives a repricing or a retirement. DeepSeek retired two model ids outright this summer and has announced a price rise; that is a routing change, not a migration.
  • Work that outlives the prompt. Projects, agents, and automations sit alongside 100+ integrations that flow both ways — triggers pull events in from tools like Slack, Gmail, and Google Calendar, and actions push data out to Stripe, Notion, and GitHub.

Model availability is flag-driven and changes as labs ship, so treat the in-product picker rather than any comparison page as the source of truth for what you can call today.

See 10 Best Open-Source AI LLMs in 2026 for the wider open-weight field.


Final Word: Two Different Shapes of Open

Qwen gives you the deeper bench — an Apache 2.0 ladder from 0.8B to 397B, a multimodal open model, and a dedicated coding line — at the cost of tracking which models are actually open and which region you are calling. DeepSeek gives you one MIT-licensed generation where the published model and the served model are the same thing, with a native million-token context and the lowest published per-token price here.

Neither answer holds for every step of a real workflow. Route per task, and keep the price of each choice in front of you when you make it.

▲ Memory feeds Intelligence. ■ Intelligence triggers Execution. ● Execution creates Memory. Two open-weight families. One workspace.

This is the origin of living software. 🌱

Build with Qwen and DeepSeek in one workspace →


Verify the comparison yourself

This is our take. We’re biased — we make Taskade. Read the alternatives from the source:

When you are ready, build with Taskade Genesis or browse live apps from the Taskade community.

More Competitors & Alternatives

View All Alternatives ↗

Cursor

Codex vs Cursor in 2026: OpenAI's agentic coding system versus the AI-native code editor, with a per-task routing matrix, what Cursor's compute-based pricing actually buys, and the third path for people who want the finished app — Taskade Genesis.

Learn More

Cursor

Taskade Genesis vs Cursor in 2026. Cursor is one of the most-used AI-native code editors and ships new versions fast, the best-in-class agentic IDE for working engineers. Taskade Genesis is for the rest of the team (operators, founders, PMs), shipping deployed apps from one prompt with AI agents, workspace data, and 100+ bidirectional integrations included — and an AI allowance that comes with the subscription instead of being metered at API rates.

Learn More

Windsurf

Windsurf is now Devin Desktop — Cognition folded the IDE into the Devin product line and windsurf.com redirects to devin.ai. Taskade Genesis ships a deployed AI app workspace with built-in agents and 100+ integrations, so anyone on the team can use what gets built, not just the engineer who ran the prompt.

Learn More

Lovable

Codex Sites vs Lovable in 2026: OpenAI's Business-only, workspace-private app builder versus Lovable's full-stack code generator — with real 2026 pricing, an honest look at credit metering on both sides, and the prompt-to-app builder that publishes to the open web for everyone, Taskade Genesis.

Learn More

Lovable

The best Lovable alternatives in 2026, compared for people who ship business systems rather than codebases. Lovable is an excellent design-first builder that returns a React + Vite project you host and maintain. This page ranks eight alternatives by what you are actually building, states Lovable's real 2026 pricing with sources, and explains where Taskade Genesis fits: a running system with data, AI agents, automations, and app sign-in, with no deployment step.

Learn More

Lovable

Taskade vs Lovable, head-to-head for 2026. Taskade Genesis turns one prompt into a living app with AI agents, automations, and 100+ integrations you publish to the open web. Lovable generates React and Supabase code you deploy yourself.

Learn More

Bolt.new

Taskade Genesis vs Bolt.new in May 2026, after Bolt V2 (October 2025) Bolt Cloud + databases + hosting + Expo mobile, $40M ARR in 5 months, and StackBlitz's $105.5M Series B at ~$700M valuation. Bolt has the only browser-native WebContainers runtime in the category. Genesis ships deployed apps with AI Agents v2, 100+ bidirectional integrations, and Workspace DNA, flat $10/mo (billed annually) Pro, no token meter on bug fixes.

Learn More

Bolt.new

Taskade vs Bolt.new, head-to-head for 2026. Taskade Genesis ships a deployed app with AI agents, automations, and 100+ integrations from one prompt. Bolt.new generates React code in a browser sandbox you deploy yourself.

Learn More

V0

Taskade Genesis vs v0 by Vercel in 2026 — after the v0.dev to v0.app rebrand, Figma and custom design-system import, the built-in Git panel, and agentic workflows. v0 ships best-in-class React/Next.js and shadcn code with the cleanest Figma-to-code path, now entering at Plus $30/user/mo with no annual billing. Taskade Genesis ships full deployed apps with a workspace backend, AI agents, and 100+ integrations on flat $10/mo billed annually.

Learn More

Imagine it. Run it live.

One prompt. Memory, intelligence, and execution — already wired, already running.