Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) | DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.7 | $1.64 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $2.8 | $2.75 |
Verdict. DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (10.8). DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) leads on Coding Index (43.5), Intelligence Index (31.4).
Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.
Provider. Alibaba and DeepSeek sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while DeepSeek often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) costs $63.00 ($756/year); DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) costs $90.45 ($1085/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $9.10/run, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) ≈ $13.70/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $420/run, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) ≈ $603/run. Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.23/M tokens vs $1.92/M for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning).
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) generates tokens faster at 59 tok/s vs — tok/s. Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) also has lower time-to-first-token (2.65s vs —s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) for lower cost, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.