Qwen3.5 27B vs DeepSeek Chat
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Qwen3.5 27B by Alibaba and DeepSeek Chat by DeepSeek represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, Qwen3.5 27B holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, Qwen3.5 27B is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, DeepSeek Chat provides an expanded memory horizon with 1,000K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Qwen3.5 27B leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
Cambia y Compara Cualquier Modelo
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Qwen3.5 27B
27B abiertodenso 27B multimodal modelo proporcionando consistent, predictable latencia y robust visión-idioma comprensión para dedicado servers.
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
262.1K tokens
N/A
DeepSeek Chat
Instrucción abiertaalto-eficiencia 1M-contexto instrucción-tuned conversación modelo based en el DeepSeek V3.2 core, que ofrece extreme precio disruption.
$0.28 / 1M
$0.42 / 1M
1M tokens
54%
Diferencias Clave de un Vistazo
- Qwen3.5 27B is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- DeepSeek Chat has a larger context window (1M vs 262K tokens).
- Qwen3.5 27B is faster at 90 tok/s vs 75 tok/s.
| Característica | Qwen3.5 27B | DeepSeek Chat |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 75 | 50 |
Provider | Alibaba | DeepSeek |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.28 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.42 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $0.12 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 262.1K tokens~393 A4 pages of text | 1M tokens~1,500 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 8K | 16K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 90 tok/s | 75 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | N/A | 54% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 56.5% | 65% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.03 / 1M |
¿Quién gana en cada área?
At-a-glance decision frameworkEvaluations ongoing
Puntuaciones de Benchmarks Verificadas
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latencia y Tiempo de Respuesta
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Simulador Interactivo de Costos de Tokens
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Qwen3.5 27B · Strengths & Key Advantages
- denso arquitectura ofrece simple servicio sin especializado MoE enrutamiento software
- Stable latencia bajo heavy multi-tenant concurrency
- Clean visión-idioma alignment para visual búsqueda y clasificación
Considerations & Trade-offs
- requiere más memoria por activo token en comparación con sparse 35B-A3B MoE
- menor pico razonamiento precisión que larger sibling modelos
DeepSeek Chat · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Groundbreaking 1M ventana de contexto un un astonishing $0.28 en / $0.42 out por millones tokens
- Multi-Head Latent Attention (MLA) arquitectura drastically reduces KV-cache memoria overhead
- de pesos abiertos availability para customized corporativo implementación
Considerations & Trade-offs
- texto-solo modelo sin nativo visual o audio comprensión
- carece de profundo multipaso razonamiento para competitivo mathematics
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 27B | DeepSeek Chat |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.00 | $0.15 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 13K | 35K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 0K | 0K |
Especificaciones Técnicas
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Característica | Qwen3.5 27B | DeepSeek Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | qwen3-5-27b-instruct | deepseek-chat |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2026-02 | 2025-12 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | December 2025 | September 2025 |
| Architecture | Dense Multimodal Autoregressive Transformer | Multi-Head Latent Attention (MLA) Sparse MoE |
| Parameters | 27B | 671B Total (37B Active) |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Flat rate ($0.28/1M in) across full 1000K window |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Automatic prefix caching at $0.028/1M (no extra cache-write fee) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 17 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 58 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 416 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 1443 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Qwen3.5 27B vs DeepSeek Chat: Respuestas Rápidas (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Qwen3.5 27B or DeepSeek Chat?
Qwen3.5 27B is more intelligent. It scores 75 compared with 50 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Qwen3.5 27B is faster, generating 90 tokens per second compared with 75 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.12 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Qwen3.5 27B has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.41s compared with 0.52s.
Which model has a larger context window?
DeepSeek Chat has a larger context window, supporting 1M tokens compared with 262.1K tokens.
Veredicto
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Qwen3.5 27B if your priority is Dedicated self-hosted API endpoints and vision classification pipelines. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose DeepSeek Chat if your workflow prioritizes Ultra-low-cost conversational agents, large document querying, and automated customer support. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
Preguntas frecuentes
How does Qwen3.5 27B compare to DeepSeek Chat in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Qwen3.5 27B costs $0.00 per 1M input tokens and $0.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas DeepSeek Chat costs $0.28 input and $0.42 output. Overall, Qwen3.5 27B is the more cost-effective model for high-volume API pipelines. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: Qwen3.5 27B or DeepSeek Chat?+
Qwen3.5 27B supports a context window of 262K tokens (~197k words), while DeepSeek Chat supports 1,000K tokens (~750k words). Therefore, DeepSeek Chat can process more textual data and document context in a single prompt.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Qwen3.5 27B or DeepSeek Chat?+
Qwen3.5 27B scores at the frontier of coding benchmarks, while DeepSeek Chat scores 54%. For complex autonomous debugging and agentic engineering, DeepSeek Chat provides robust code generation and tool calling.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Qwen3.5 27B and DeepSeek Chat?+
Qwen3.5 27B is optimized for low-latency direct generation. In contrast, DeepSeek Chat focuses on standard fast inference.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Qwen3.5 27B and DeepSeek Chat?+
Qwen3.5 27B generates approximately 90 tokens per second, while DeepSeek Chat delivers 75 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Qwen3.5 27B provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Qwen3.5 27B and DeepSeek Chat to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to Qwen3.5 27B to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to DeepSeek Chat. This tiered routing pattern cuts overall API bills by up to 70%.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- DeepSeek Chat vs Qwen3.5 9B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparar
- Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparar
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B vs DeepSeek Chat: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparar
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B vs Qwen3.5 27B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparar
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparar
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonComparar
Las puntuaciones de benchmarks, precios por token y límites de tasa evolucionan rápidamente. Verifique siempre las especificaciones actuales en la documentación oficial del proveedor.
Fuentes: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs