| Signal | R1 0528 | Delta | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | +50 | |
Pricing | 2 | +2 | |
Context window size | 83 | +6 | |
Recency | 80 | +74 | |
Output Capacity | 80 | +15 | |
| Overall Result | 5 wins | of 5 | 0 wins |
30
days ranked higher
0
days
0
days ranked higher
DeepSeek
Microsoft
WizardLM-2 8x22B saves you $59.50/month
That's $714.00/year compared to R1 0528 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | R1 0528 | WizardLM-2 8x22B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 75 | 34 | R1 0528 |
| Rank | #93 | #290 | R1 0528 |
| Quality Rank | #93 | #290 | R1 0528 |
| Adoption Rank | #93 | #290 | R1 0528 |
| Parameters | -- | 22B | -- |
| Context Window | 164K | 66K | R1 0528 |
| Pricing | $0.45/$2.15/M | $0.62/$0.62/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 17 | R1 0528 |
| Pricing | 2 | 1 | R1 0528 |
| Context window size | 83 | 76 | R1 0528 |
| Recency | 80 | 6 | R1 0528 |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 65 | R1 0528 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 75/100 (rank #93), placing it in the top 68% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 34/100 (rank #290), placing it in the top 0% of all 290 models tracked.
R1 0528 has a 41-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
R1 0528 offers 52% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $18.60/month with WizardLM-2 8x22B vs $39.00/month with R1 0528 — a $20.40 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. WizardLM-2 8x22B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (164K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.62/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (75/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
R1 0528 clearly outperforms WizardLM-2 8x22B with a significant 40.8-point lead. For most general use cases, R1 0528 is the stronger choice. However, WizardLM-2 8x22B may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
R1 0528
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
WizardLM-2 8x22B
52% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
R1 0528
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
R1 0528
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
R1 0528
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by DeepSeek
| Capability | R1 0528 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
DeepSeek
Microsoft
WizardLM-2 8x22B saves you $1.53/month
That's 45% cheaper than R1 0528 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | R1 0528 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 164K | 66K |
| Max Output Tokens | 65,536 | 8,000 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | May 28, 2025 | Apr 16, 2024 |
R1 0528 scores 75/100 (rank #93) compared to WizardLM-2 8x22B's 34/100 (rank #290), giving it a 41-point advantage. R1 0528 is the stronger overall choice, though WizardLM-2 8x22B may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
R1 0528 is ranked #93 and WizardLM-2 8x22B is ranked #290 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
WizardLM-2 8x22B is cheaper at $0.62/M output tokens vs R1 0528's $2.15/M output tokens — 3.5x more expensive. Input token pricing: R1 0528 at $0.45/M vs WizardLM-2 8x22B at $0.62/M.
R1 0528 has a larger context window of 163,840 tokens compared to WizardLM-2 8x22B's 65,535 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.