Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs GPT-5.3 Codex
GPT-5.3 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 5.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.3 Codex in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GPT-5.3 Codex leads 48.0 to 30.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 41.6% for DeepSeek-R1 and 79.3% for GPT-5.3 Codex.
- DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $0.50 / $2.15 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Codex.
- GPT-5.3 Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 164K.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.3 | 45.8 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2026-02-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | 400K |
| Max output | 64K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $1.75 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | $14 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 8 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.3 Codex leads
DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68), GPT-5.3 Codex: 48.6 (#56)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.6% | 79.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | 1,655 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 74.8% |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1409 |
| SciCode | 35.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.3 Codex leads
DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75), GPT-5.3 Codex: 48.0 (#9)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | 74.5% |
| Terminal-Bench | — | 78.4% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,940 |
Reasoning Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.29 | 156.77 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1400 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| 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), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88), GPT-5.3 Codex: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.3 Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1405 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-R1 better than GPT-5.3 Codex?
GPT-5.3 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-R1 costs 5.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or GPT-5.3 Codex?
DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2.15 per million output tokens; GPT-5.3 Codex lists at $1.75 and $14.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or GPT-5.3 Codex better for coding?
GPT-5.3 Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 46.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.3 Codex does, with 400K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-5.3 Codex share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.3 Codex has 8.