WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

R1 0528 vs Moondream 3.1Which Is Better in 2026?

DeepSeek: R1 0528 logoDeepSeek•
Moondream

R1 0528 vs Moondream 3.1: which should you choose in 2026?

R1 0528 (by DeepSeek) and Moondream 3.1 (by Moondream) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

Moondream 3.1 is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.85 vs $0.9125 per 1M tokens).

R1 0528 has the larger context window (163,840 tokens vs 32,000 tokens).

Choose R1 0528 if…

  • • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases

Choose Moondream 3.1 if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
  • • you need image inputs

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

R1 0528 and Moondream 3.1 benchmark results
BenchmarkR1 0528Moondream 3.1
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

——
BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

——
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

——
Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

——
AutoBench

A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench.

Weighted peer-assessment score

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

——
Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

——
Arena preference scores
Arena (Text)

Human preference score

1422 ±6
—

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Oct 5, 2026.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

R1 0528 and Moondream 3.1 model facts
FeatureR1 0528Moondream 3.1
Context & model facts
DeveloperDeepSeekMoondream
API providerDeepSeekMoondream
Input context163,840 tokens32,000 tokens
Maximum output32,768 tokens4,096 tokens
Released——
Added to WritingmateMay 28, 2025Oct 15, 2026
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff2025-03-31—
Capabilities
InputsTextText, Image
OutputsTextText
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
VisionNoYes
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.50$0.30
Output (per 1M tokens)$2.15$2.50
Blended 3:1 input/output$0.9125$0.85
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

Data sources

  • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

Catalog data last updated Oct 15, 2026.

Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

Comparing R1 0528 from DeepSeek with Moondream 3.1 from Moondream? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for R1 0528 and Moondream 3.1
PlanPriceR1 0528Moondream 3.1AI ImagesAI Video
Writingmate Pro
Most popular
$20/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
Writingmate Ultimate
Power users
$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
View Plans & Pricing

R1 0528 vs Moondream 3.1 FAQ

Which is better, R1 0528 or Moondream 3.1?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Moondream 3.1 is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.85 vs $0.9125 per 1M tokens). R1 0528 has the larger context window (163,840 tokens vs 32,000 tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Moondream 3.1 is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.85 vs $0.9125 per 1M tokens).

Which model supports more context?

R1 0528 has the larger context window (163,840 tokens vs 32,000 tokens).

Can I switch between R1 0528 and Moondream 3.1?

Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.