Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs GPT-5.5 Instant
DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-5.5 Instant score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.3 vs 42.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 3 categories and GPT-5.5 Instant in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where DeepSeek-R1 leads 43.8 to 26.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 35.7% for DeepSeek-R1 and 48.6% for GPT-5.5 Instant.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.3 | 42.7 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2026-05-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | — |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68), GPT-5.5 Instant: 44.3 (#74)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.7% | 48.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1433 |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75), GPT-5.5 Instant: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.5 Instant leads
DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278), GPT-5.5 Instant: 24.9 (#155)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | 1426 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.29 | 142.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |
Math DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79), GPT-5.5 Instant: 26.5 (#259)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | 68.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1400 | 1420 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 26.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 2.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.5 Instant leads
DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87), GPT-5.5 Instant: 48.9 (#74)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 82.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | 1409 |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: —, GPT-5.5 Instant: 40.0 (#52)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1250 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1403 |
Multilingual Too close to call
DeepSeek-R1: 52.4 (#85), GPT-5.5 Instant: 52.8 (#80)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | 1417 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1442 | 1456 |
| LMArena French | 1417 | 1428 |
| LMArena German | 1404 | 1411 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1391 | 1408 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1392 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1431 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | 1429 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.5 Instant leads
DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143), GPT-5.5 Instant: 74.2 (#100)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | 1406 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
Long Context DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), GPT-5.5 Instant: 43.4 (#96)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | 1422 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88), GPT-5.5 Instant: 61.8 (#85)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | GPT-5.5 Instant |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1419 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1405 | 1419 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | 1433 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-R1 better than GPT-5.5 Instant?
DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-5.5 Instant score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.3 vs 42.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or GPT-5.5 Instant better for coding?
DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 44.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-5.5 Instant share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.5 Instant has 27.