Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs Grok 4.1 Fast
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek-R1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4.1 Fast in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 42.3 to 18.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 40.8% for DeepSeek-R1 and 56% for Grok 4.1 Fast.
- Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper at $0.20 / $0.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.50 / $2.15 for DeepSeek-R1.
- DeepSeek-R1 accepts more context: 164K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2025-06-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | 128K |
| Max output | 64K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | $0.20 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | $0.50 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 45.9 (#63), Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.8 (#236)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1411 |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | 394.93 |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1241 |
| SciCode | 35.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.1 Fast leads
DeepSeek-R1: 30.4 (#68), Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.1 (#35)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 69.6% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 13.1% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1171 |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 1,107 |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads
DeepSeek-R1: 18.7 (#253), Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.3 (#45)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | 56% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1415 | 1407 |
| ForecastBench | 60 | 61 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 87.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| DTBench | — | 87.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |
Math DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 42.0 (#70), Grok 4.1 Fast: 30.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1401 | 1408 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 60.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 4% |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 44.3 (#81), Grok 4.1 Fast: 32.6 (#203)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | 1398 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek-R1: —, Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#71)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1201 |
Multilingual DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 52.6 (#80), Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.1 (#110)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | 1391 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1443 | 1441 |
| LMArena French | 1415 | 1416 |
| LMArena German | 1405 | 1404 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1394 | 1347 |
| LMArena Korean | 1359 | 1361 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1387 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1410 | 1411 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
DeepSeek-R1: 72.2 (#138), Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | 1376 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
Long Context DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#121)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | 1390 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | — |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 61.5 (#84), Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.4 (#126)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4.1 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1408 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1406 | 1394 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1500 | 1327 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1404 | 1389 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83% | — |
| WildBench | 82.8% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 48.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-R1 better than Grok 4.1 Fast?
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.0 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index. Grok 4.1 Fast costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek-R1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or Grok 4.1 Fast?
Grok 4.1 Fast is cheaper. It lists at $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-R1 lists at $0.50 and $2.15.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or Grok 4.1 Fast better for coding?
DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.9 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek-R1 does, with 164K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and Grok 4.1 Fast share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.1 Fast has 32.