Model comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.2 to 52.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 37 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 3 categories and GPT-5.6 Terra in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.6 Terra leads 81.6 to 66.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath Tier 4: 26.8% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 70.7% for GPT-5.6 Terra.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for GPT-5.6 Terra.
- GPT-5.6 Terra accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 52.8 | 59.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-09 | 2026-07-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 393K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $12 |
| Results tracked | 37 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32), GPT-5.6 Terra: 57.7 (#19)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1619 | 1522 |
| SciCode | 51.9% | 55% |
| LMArena Coding | 1506 | 1484 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,092 | 1,951 |
| DeepSWE | — | 69.6% |
| FrontierCode | — | 41.3% |
| CursorBench | — | 41.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 78.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69), GPT-5.6 Terra: 40.1 (#25)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 39.5% | 58.2% |
| GDP.pdf | 19.8% | 24.7% |
| BALROG | — | 53.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 7,343 |
Reasoning GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36), GPT-5.6 Terra: 60.7 (#21)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 89.6% | 78.4% |
| CritPt | 14.3% | 30% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1483 | 1468 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | 35% |
| DTBench | 89.9% | 93.3% |
| LMCA | 47% | 55% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 46.3% | 83.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.9 | 159.62 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 83.9% |
| SimpleBench | — | 48.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 51.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 96.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 54% |
Math GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25), GPT-5.6 Terra: 81.6 (#12)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 67.4% | 86% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | 70.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 99.7% |
| ProofBench | 54% | 74% |
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1466 |
Knowledge GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38), GPT-5.6 Terra: 61.2 (#30)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.8% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1506 | 1492 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 43.2% |
Multimodal GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61), GPT-5.6 Terra: 47.3 (#11)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1277 | 1271 |
| Furniture Assembly | 34.2% | 54.2% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 30.8% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1472 |
Multilingual Too close to call
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35), GPT-5.6 Terra: 54.4 (#44)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1439 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1497 | 1513 |
| LMArena French | 1452 | 1471 |
| LMArena German | 1484 | 1460 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | 1457 |
| LMArena Korean | 1452 | 1425 |
| LMArena Russian | 1471 | 1450 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1459 | 1448 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26), GPT-5.6 Terra: 76.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1474 | 1454 |
Long Context Too close to call
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47), GPT-5.6 Terra: 44.4 (#68)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1475 | 1451 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.6 Terra leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48), GPT-5.6 Terra: 70.2 (#23)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | 1410 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1540 | 1855 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1457 | 1449 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1234 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.2 to 52.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.6 Terra's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GPT-5.6 Terra?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GPT-5.6 Terra lists at $2 and $12.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or GPT-5.6 Terra better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 52.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.6 Terra does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GPT-5.6 Terra share?
37 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.6 Terra has 52.