uttapen

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Qwen3 32B

Both sit behind the same key and the same code on uttapen — the only thing that changes is the model string, so you can run each of them against your own workload without touching anything else. On cost, Qwen3 32B comes out about 1.2× cheaper.

FeatureDeepSeek V4 Flash 0731Qwen3 32B
ProviderDeepSeekQwen (Alibaba)
Model iddeepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731qwen/qwen3-32b
Context1,310,720 tokens131,072 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens16,384 tokens
Input / 1M tokens40,618 toman23,210 toman
Output / 1M tokens81,235 toman81,235 toman
≈ one 1,000-word request158 toman136 toman
Input caching8,124 toman / 1MNo
Image inputNoNo
File inputNoNo
Tool callingYesYes
JSON outputYesYes
Reasoning modeYesYes

Which one for what?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

  • Multi-step problems, maths, and tracking down a bug
  • Whole documents or a codebase in a single request
  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
158 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Qwen3 32B

  • Multi-step problems, maths, and tracking down a bug
  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
136 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Run both with the same code

Swap the model value between the two ids and send the same request twice; what each answer cost comes back in the X-Uttapen-Cost-Toman header.

curl https://api.uttapen.ir/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk-up-…" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Introduce yourself in one sentence."}],
    "stream": true
  }'

model = "qwen/qwen3-32b"

More comparisons: all pairs · model rankings · full catalogue

base_url = https://api.uttapen.ir/v1