Model comparison
DeepSeek LLM 67B vs GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.6 Sol in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Sol leads 85.6 to 8.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.8% for DeepSeek LLM 67B and 100% for GPT-5.6 Sol.
- DeepSeek LLM 67B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 65.0 |
| Released | 2023-11-29 | 2026-07-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1.05M |
| Max output | — | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $4 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $20 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 65 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.1 (#7)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1096 | 1498 |
| DeepSWE | — | 72.7% |
| FrontierCode | — | 47.5% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1618 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 32.2% |
| SciCode | — | 57.1% |
| GSO | — | 76.5% |
| WeirdML | — | 89.4% |
| MirrorCode | — | 20% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 2,177 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, GPT-5.6 Sol: 50.3 (#7)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 51.4% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 27.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 46.9% |
| PostTrainBench | — | 36.2% |
| BALROG | — | 60% |
| GBAEval | — | 52.6% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 30.7% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1257 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 9,619 |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), GPT-5.6 Sol: 74.8 (#8)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 64% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1070 | 1484 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 110.5 | 161.66 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 92.5% |
| SimpleBench | — | 71.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 67% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 93.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 97.5% |
| CritPt | — | 32.3% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 37.1% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 44.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 58% |
| DTBench | — | 96% |
| LMCA | — | 59.2% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 93.1% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |
Math GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), GPT-5.6 Sol: 85.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.8% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1108 | 1474 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 89.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 82.9% |
| ProofBench | — | 83% |
| MATH Level 5 | 6.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | — | 0% |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), GPT-5.6 Sol: 64.3 (#18)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 24.6% | 93.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 69.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.4% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1516 |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek LLM 67B: —, GPT-5.6 Sol: 48.6 (#9)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1281 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 33.6% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1483 |
Multilingual GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), GPT-5.6 Sol: 55.3 (#32)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1073 | 1452 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1527 |
| LMArena French | — | 1477 |
| LMArena German | — | 1476 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1471 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1442 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1468 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1441 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), GPT-5.6 Sol: 77.7 (#16)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1079 | 1482 |
Long Context GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), GPT-5.6 Sol: 45.4 (#42)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1092 | 1480 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Sol leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), GPT-5.6 Sol: 73.3 (#12)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | GPT-5.6 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1105 | 1457 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1067 | 1448 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1082 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1972 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1250 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than GPT-5.6 Sol?
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or GPT-5.6 Sol better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 65.1 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and GPT-5.6 Sol share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.6 Sol has 65.