Compare/Qwen3.6 Plus vs DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Qwen3.6 PlusvsDeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Alibaba

Qwen3.6 Plus

Input
$0.5/M
Output
$3/M
Speed
56 tok/s
TTFT
2.20s
DeepSeek

DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Input
$1.35/M
Output
$3/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Qwen3.6 Plus
Faster (tok/s)
Qwen3.6 Plus
Lower Latency
Qwen3.6 Plus
Benchmarks (2-0)
Qwen3.6 Plus

Pricing Comparison

MetricQwen3.6 PlusDeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)
Input ($/M tokens)$0.5$1.35
Output ($/M tokens)$3$3
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Qwen3.6 Plus$0.80
DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)$1.65

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Qwen3.6 Plus
56 tok/s
DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Qwen3.6 Plus
2.20s
DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.6 Plus wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Qwen3.6 Plus is strongest on Coding Index (54.5), Intelligence Index (40.5). DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) leads on Intelligence Index (20.4).

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): Qwen3.6 Plus costs $60.00 ($720/year); DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) costs $85.50 ($1026/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.6 Plus ≈ $8.50/run, DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) ≈ $12.75/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.6 Plus ≈ $400/run, DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25) ≈ $570/run. Qwen3.6 Plus 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.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
40.520.4
Coding Index
54.5
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Qwen3.6 Plus2 wins
0 winsDeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 Plus or DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)?

Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.13/M tokens vs $1.76/M for DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Qwen3.6 Plus wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Qwen3.6 Plus generates tokens faster at 56 tok/s vs — tok/s. Qwen3.6 Plus also has lower time-to-first-token (2.20s vs —s).

When should I use Qwen3.6 Plus vs DeepSeek R1 0528 (May '25)?

Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.6 Plus for lower cost, Qwen3.6 Plus for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.6 Plus for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.