DeepSeek V3 vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
AI Matrix
Powered by Claude AIDeepSeek V3 narrowly beats the Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B in the ai language models category, particularly in design, scoring 6.5/10 vs 5.9/10. If you want the better overall performer, DeepSeek V3 is the clear pick.
3 Reasons Why DeepSeek V3 Is Better
- 1.Better performance score: 8.1 vs 7.4
- 2.Higher design rating: 6.2 vs 3.3
- 3.Higher overall score: 6.5/10 vs 5.9/10
Spezifikationsvergleich
DeepSeek V3Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
Bewertungsaufschlüsselung
DeepSeek V3Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
9.9
Cost Efficiency20% weight
9.8Unentschieden
8.1
Benchmark (MMLU)30% weight
7.4DeepSeek V3 Gewinner
6.2
Arena ELO20% weight
3.3DeepSeek V3 Gewinner
1.2
Context Window10% weight
1.2Unentschieden
1.4
Speed (tok/s)10% weight
2.5Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B Gewinner
5.6
Coding (HumanEval)10% weight
6.6Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B Gewinner
Scores are relative within the ai language modelscategory. Percentages show each dimension's weight in the overall score. A difference of less than 0.5 points is considered a tie.
DeepSeek V3
Gewinner✓ Pros
- ●Strong performance score
- ●Better build and design
✗ Cons
- ●Lower display score
- ●Lower camera score
Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B
✓ Pros
- ●Better display quality
- ●Higher camera score
✗ Cons
- ●Lower performance score
💰 Token Pricing (per 1M tokens)
Lower cost = better value. Free = open-source self-hosted.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3 | 2.5 72B |
|---|---|---|
| Input (Prompt) | ✓$0.27/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Output (Completion) | ✓$1.10/1M | $1.20/1M |
| Open Source | ✓ Free | ✓ Free |
⚡ Context Window & Speed
Context Window (tokens)
DeepSeek V3128K
2.5 72B128K
| Metric | DeepSeek V3 | 2.5 72B |
|---|---|---|
| Max Output | 8,192 tok | 8,192 tok |
| Speed | 60 tok/s | ✓90 tok/s |
| Time to First Token | 800ms | ✓500ms |
| Languages | 20+ | ✓29+ |
📊 Benchmark Scores
Higher is better. Industry-standard AI evaluation benchmarks.
DeepSeek V3
2.5 72B
MMLU (Knowledge)
88.5|86.0
DeepSeek V3
2.5 72B
HumanEval (Coding)
82.6|86.6
DeepSeek V3
2.5 72B
MATH (Mathematics)
75.7|73.8
DeepSeek V3
2.5 72B
GPQA (Expert Q&A)
59.1|49.5
DeepSeek V3
2.5 72B
Chatbot Arena ELO
1318.0|1239.0
DeepSeek V3
2.5 72B
🔧 Capabilities
| Feature | DeepSeek V3 | 2.5 72B |
|---|---|---|
| Reasoning / Chain-of-Thought | ✕ | ✕ |
| Vision (Image Input) | ✕ | ✕ |
| Audio Input | ✕ | ✕ |
| Video Input | ✕ | ✕ |
| Image/Audio Output | ✕ | ✕ |
| Function Calling / Tools | ✓ | ✓ |
| JSON Mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Real-time Web Access | ✕ | ✕ |
| Fine-tuning Support | ✓ | ✓ |
| Batch API | ✓ | ✓ |
| Streaming | ✓ | ✓ |
| Open Source | ✓ | ✓ |
ℹ️ Model Details
| Field | DeepSeek V3 | 2.5 72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba |
| Parameters | 671B (37B active) | 72B |
| Knowledge Cutoff | 2024-07 | 2024-09 |
| License | MIT | Qwen Community |
| Best For | cost efficiencycodingopen sourcegeneral | multilingualcodingopen sourceChinese language |
Wer sollte kaufen
Buy DeepSeek V3 if…
Buy the DeepSeek V3 if you want the best performance in this comparison. It scores higher overall and is the recommended choice for most buyers.
Buy Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B if…
The Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is worth considering if you prefer its specific design, ecosystem, or brand — though it scores lower overall in our comparison.
DeepSeek V3 vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B — FAQ
DeepSeek V3 vs Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B: which is better?
DeepSeek V3 narrowly beats the Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B in the ai language models category, particularly in design, scoring 6.5/10 vs 5.9/10. If you want the better overall performer, DeepSeek V3 is the clear pick.
Is DeepSeek V3 better than Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B?
Yes, DeepSeek V3 scores higher overall (9.1 vs 8.4).
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3 or Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B?
Check the latest prices using the buy links above.
Who should buy the DeepSeek V3?
Buy the DeepSeek V3 if you want the best performance in this comparison. It scores higher overall and is the recommended choice for most buyers.
Who should buy the Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B?
The Alibaba Qwen 2.5 72B is worth considering if you prefer its specific design, ecosystem, or brand — though it scores lower overall in our comparison.
