Qwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$0.0868Openrouter · Aug 28, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026$0.1736Openrouter · Aug 28, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BDeepSeek-V4-Flash
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader-0.6498% of row best · score · Qwen 3.8 27B; 95% CI [-1.36495564, 0.07819043]; sessions 37257; observations 4349219; rank 291.80100% of row best · score · Deepseek V4 Flash (High) (20260731); 95% CI [1.06225523, 2.53222539]; sessions 64482; observations 6405377; rank 22
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,439.27100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 681,431.7999% of row best · rating · deepseek-v4-flash; 95% CI [1427.66110387, 1435.91557810]; votes 48887; rank 83
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader78.02100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case69.6789% of row best · percent · deepseek-v4-flash · 34,434 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie1 benchmark winNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldQwen3.8-27BDeepSeek-V4-Flash
DeveloperQwenDeepSeek
FamilyQwen3 8 27bDeepseek V4 Flash
ModelQwen3.8-27BDeepSeek-V4-Flash
VersionQwen3.8-27BDeepSeek-V4-Flash
Lifecycleactiveretired
ReleasedUnknown2026-04-24
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K1,049K
Total parameters27.8B290.9B
Active parametersUnknown13B
Licenseapache-2.0mit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)DeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

DeepSeek V4 Flash Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoning
Serving providers5
Canonical IDdeepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash FAQs

Is Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and DeepSeek V4 Flash is $0.0868 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and DeepSeek V4 Flash is $0.1736 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+

DeepSeek V4 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K and DeepSeek V4 Flash supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: The verified common benchmarks do not produce a majority winner.

Can Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; DeepSeek V4 Flash is open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; DeepSeek V4 Flash is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 27B is 131K and DeepSeek V4 Flash is —.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. DeepSeek V4 Flash: reasoning. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; DeepSeek V4 Flash has 5, so DeepSeek V4 Flash has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or DeepSeek V4 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback