# DeepSeek-V3.1 vs GPT-5.2 Pro

> GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1 costs 136× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v3-1-vs-gpt-5-2-pro
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-5.2 Pro in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 64.8 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 40% for DeepSeek-V3.1 and 57.4% for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.95 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
- GPT-5.2 Pro accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 42.2 | 52.2 |
| Rank | 106 | 34 |
| Context | 164K | 400K |
| Input $/M | $0.25 | $21 |
| Output $/M | $0.95 | $168 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 39.8 (#140)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 38.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | — |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.3 (#109)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.8 (#31)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 40% | 57.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.92 | 155.41 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 54.2% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 79.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 90.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1417 | — |
| DTBench | 82.7% | — |
| LMCA | 24.3% | — |
| ForecastBench | 58 | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.1 (#125)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: 64.8 (#23)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 74% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46% |
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 31.3% |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.0 (#86)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.5% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1403 | — |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.8 (#100)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | — |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1374 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1429 | — |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 74.1 (#105)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#227)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 52.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.5 (#93)
- GPT-5.2 Pro: —

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | GPT-5.2 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than GPT-5.2 Pro?

GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1 costs 136× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1 or GPT-5.2 Pro?

DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.95 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Pro does, with 400K tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and GPT-5.2 Pro share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.2 Pro has 8.