Model comparison
DeepSeek-R1 vs Grok 4 Fast
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-R1 scores higher in 6 categories and Grok 4 Fast in 3 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Grok 4 Fast leads 63.2 to 45.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 21.2% for DeepSeek-R1 and 48.5% for Grok 4 Fast.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | xAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.3 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2025-01-20 | 2025-09-19 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | — |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.15 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 30 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 46.3 (#68), Grok 4 Fast: 32.5 (#271)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 41.6% | 42.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | 1429 |
| Aider Polyglot | 71.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1159 |
| SciCode | 35.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 66.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 804.12 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.7 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 30.7 (#75), Grok 4 Fast: 29.5 (#86)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 15.7% |
| Cybench | — | 30% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| BALROG | 34.9% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1171 |
| METR Time Horizons | 53.8% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4 Fast leads
DeepSeek-R1: 18.6 (#278), Grok 4 Fast: 22.2 (#201)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | 5.3% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 69.4% | 66.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 21.2% | 48.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | 1412 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.29 | 144.2 |
| ForecastBench | 60 | 60.5 |
| SimpleBench | 40.8% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 83.2% | — |
| DTBench | — | 82.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.8% | — |
| LiveBench | 71.6% | — |
Math DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 43.8 (#79), Grok 4 Fast: 38.9 (#123)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1400 | 1419 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 42.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.7% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.6% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 44.5 (#87), Grok 4 Fast: 32.0 (#214)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.3% | 19.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1394 | 1411 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 66.6% | — |
Multilingual DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 52.4 (#85), Grok 4 Fast: 51.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1412 | 1396 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1442 | 1457 |
| LMArena French | 1417 | 1431 |
| LMArena German | 1404 | 1383 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1391 | 1352 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 1357 |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | 1389 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1411 | 1415 |
Instruction Following Grok 4 Fast leads
DeepSeek-R1: 72.0 (#143), Grok 4 Fast: 73.2 (#121)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1382 | 1387 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.5% | — |
| IFEval | 78.4% | — |
Long Context Grok 4 Fast leads
DeepSeek-R1: 45.4 (#36), Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 75% | 94.4% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1391 | 1415 |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek-R1 leads
DeepSeek-R1: 61.4 (#88), Grok 4 Fast: 60.0 (#102)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-R1 | Grok 4 Fast |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1428 | 1407 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1405 | 1387 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | 1414 |
| 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 Grok 4 Fast?
DeepSeek-R1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek-R1 or Grok 4 Fast better for coding?
DeepSeek-R1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-R1 and Grok 4 Fast share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-R1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4 Fast has 30.