Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 5 categories and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where DeepSeek-R1 leads 44.5 to 30.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Language: 48.5% for DeepSeek-R1 and 23.8% for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B.
- DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 42.3 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2025-01-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 164K | — |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: 36.8 (#202)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | 51.6% |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| SciCode | 35.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 49.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B leads
DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: 24.9 (#156)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | 52.3% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | 67.6% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | 55.9% |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.29 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: 36.0 (#176)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | 58.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | 89.9% |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1400 | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: 30.7 (#225)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 55.7% |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 52.4 (#85), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1442 | — |
| LMArena French | 1417 | — |
| LMArena German | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | — |
Instruction Following DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: 68.2 (#190)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | 69.9% |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88), DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B: 49.0 (#194)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | 23.8% |
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1405 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-R1 better than DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B?
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 37.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B better for coding?
DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B share?
11 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B has 13.