Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3 vs GPT-5.1
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3 costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 41 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 41 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 52.2 to 32.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 37.8% for DeepSeek-V3 and 88.6% for GPT-5.1.
- DeepSeek-V3 is cheaper at $0.24 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 39.5 | 49.0 |
| Released | 2024-12-26 | 2025-11-13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 164K | 400K |
| Max output | 164K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.24 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.90 | $10 |
| Results tracked | 60 | 63 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 42.3 (#106), GPT-5.1: 46.4 (#66)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.8% | 43.3% |
| WeirdML | 36.1% | 60.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | 70.9% | 72.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1368 | 1454 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 68% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1395 |
| GSO | — | 13.7% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 50% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 62.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,192 |
| HumanEval+ | 86.6% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3: —, GPT-5.1: 32.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 47.6% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 42.8% |
| LMArena Search | — | 1199 |
| METR Time Horizons | 49.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 1,473 |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 20.5 (#236), GPT-5.1: 39.8 (#58)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 27.2% | 53.2% |
| CritPt | 0% | 4.9% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 65.8% | 95.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1365 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 64.8% | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 60.9% | 72.1% |
| LMCA | 15.5% | 43.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.94 | 149.64 |
| ForecastBench | 59.1 | 58.1 |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | 78.8% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 17.6% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 72.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 32% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 11.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 87.5% | — |
| HellaSwag | 88.9% | — |
| PIQA | 84.7% | — |
| WinoGrande | 85.2% | — |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 32.1 (#219), GPT-5.1: 52.2 (#51)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 37.8% | 88.6% |
| Omni-MATH | 40.3% | 46.4% |
| LiveBench Math | 73.5% | 94.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1447 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | 31% |
| MATH Level 5 | 75.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 12.5% |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 37.5 (#155), GPT-5.1: 50.6 (#71)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 67.6% | 87.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | 72.3% | 57.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.1% | 10.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 53.8% | 44.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1351 | 1470 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 23.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 48% |
| Confabulations | 26.1% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 95.3% | — |
| MMLU | 87.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 82.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3: —, GPT-5.1: 44.8 (#19)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1250 |
| VPCT | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1403 |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 48.5 (#143), GPT-5.1: 53.8 (#56)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1391 | 1495 |
| LMArena French | 1385 | 1450 |
| LMArena German | 1374 | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1333 | 1453 |
| LMArena Korean | 1319 | 1401 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1435 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1358 | 1433 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 72.8 (#130), GPT-5.1: 83.9 (#1)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | 93.3% |
| IFEval | 83.2% | 93.5% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1345 | 1443 |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 34.0 (#253), GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1352 | 1447 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 50% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 23.7% |
| CL-bench Life | — | 17.3% |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3: 57.4 (#130), GPT-5.1: 64.5 (#55)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1375 | 1443 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1364 | 1427 |
| WildBench | 83% | 86.3% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1450 |
| LiveBench Language | 49.1% | 80.2% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 77% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1472 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3 better than GPT-5.1?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3 costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3 or GPT-5.1?
DeepSeek-V3 is cheaper. It lists at $0.24 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is DeepSeek-V3 or GPT-5.1 better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.4 versus 42.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 164K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3 and GPT-5.1 share?
41 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3 has 60 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1 has 63.