Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale vs Phi-1.5
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has enough public results to be ranked (#162); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
MicrosoftSide by side
| DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Phi-1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 39.7 | — |
| Released | 2025-12-01 | 2023-09-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.58 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.68 | — |
| Results tracked | 3 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 40.4 (#140), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 46.7% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.9 (#73), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 52.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 91.53 |
| HellaSwag | — | 47.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 73.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 44.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 75.8% |
| MMLU | — | 37.6% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 37.2% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.0 (#222), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1276 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better than Phi-1.5?
DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has enough public results to be ranked (#162); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and Phi-1.5 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.