Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Llama 3.1-405B

DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1 DeepSeek

42.8

Rank #108 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-405B Meta

30.7

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3.1-405B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek-V3.1 leads 60.3 to 38.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 82.7% for DeepSeek-V3.1 and 61.4% for Llama 3.1-405B.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1 and Llama 3.1-405B specifications
DeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
ProviderDeepSeekMeta
Noometry Index42.830.7
Released2025-08-212024-07-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.25—
Output $ / M tokens$0.95—
Results tracked2742

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144), Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
WeirdML38.4%21.4%
LMArena Coding14171291

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1: —, Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
TheAgentCompany—7.4%
Cybench—7.5%

Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110), Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
SimpleBench40%23%
Kagi LLM Benchmark53.2%45%
LMArena Hard Prompts14171269
DTBench82.7%61.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index139.92128.75
ForecastBench5859.9
LMCA24.3%—
BIG-Bench Hard—82.9%
HellaSwag—89.2%
PIQA—85.9%
WinoGrande—89.2%

Math DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122), Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Math14201281
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—9.7%
Omni-MATH—24.9%
MATH Level 5—49.8%

Knowledge DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90), Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Expert14051243
GPQA Diamond—50.9%
MMLU-Pro—72.3%
Confabulations—17.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.5%—
GPQA (HELM)—52.2%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—95.3%
MMLU—84.5%
TriviaQA—82.7%

Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106), Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Non-English14001248
LMArena Chinese14691242
LMArena French14471279
LMArena German14111252
LMArena Japanese13781208
LMArena Korean13371184
LMArena Russian14051265
LMArena Spanish14311260

Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110), Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Instruction Following14001259
IFEval—81.1%

Long Context Llama 3.1-405B leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Longer Query14221266
Fiction.LiveBench52.8%—

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1 leads

DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1Llama 3.1-405B
LMArena Text14201284
LMArena Creative Writing14011262
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1436870
LMArena Multi-Turn14081297
WildBench—78.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than Llama 3.1-405B?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or Llama 3.1-405B better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.3 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and Llama 3.1-405B share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-405B has 42.

Related comparisons

Go deeper