# DeepSeek-V3 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

> GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3 costs 9.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6.1 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-v3-vs-gpt-6-1-sol
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3 scores higher in 0 categories and GPT-6.1 Sol in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-6.1 Sol leads 93.7 to 32.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 37.8% for DeepSeek-V3 and 100% for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- DeepSeek-V3 is cheaper at $0.24 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- GPT-6.1 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 164K.
- DeepSeek-V3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 39.5 | 65.6 |
| Rank | 166 | 6 |
| Context | 164K | 1.05M |
| Input $/M | $0.24 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | $10 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- DeepSeek-V3: 42.3 (#106)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.2 (#8)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.8% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1368 | 1487 |
| DeepSWE | — | 75.2% |
| FrontierCode | — | 50.2% |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1755 |
| WeirdML | 36.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 50% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 70.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 62.2% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 86.6% | — |
| MBPP+ | 73% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek-V3: —
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 39.6 (#26)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 60% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 32% |
| METR Time Horizons | 49.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek-V3: 20.5 (#236)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 81.9 (#2)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 31.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1365 | 1466 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.94 | 166.09 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 94.2% |
| SimpleBench | 27.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 52.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 95.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 98.5% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 61% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 54.3% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 65.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 80% |
| DTBench | 64.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 60.9% | — |
| LMCA | 15.5% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 87.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.1 | — |
| HellaSwag | 88.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
| PIQA | 84.7% | — |
| WinoGrande | 85.2% | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek-V3: 32.1 (#219)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 93.7 (#1)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 37.8% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1373 | 1464 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 93.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 100% |
| ProofBench | — | 99% |
| Omni-MATH | 40.3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 73.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 75.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek-V3: 37.5 (#155)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 71.8 (#4)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 67.6% | 95.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1351 | 1502 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 73.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | 72.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 26.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 53.8% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 95.3% | — |
| MMLU | 87.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 82.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- DeepSeek-V3: —
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 52.7 (#5)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1288 |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 80% |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek-V3: 48.5 (#143)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 54.3 (#46)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1438 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1391 | 1477 |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | 1455 |
| LMArena French | 1385 | — |
| LMArena German | 1374 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1319 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1358 | — |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek-V3: 72.8 (#130)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 77.0 (#29)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1345 | 1468 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| IFEval | 83.2% | — |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek-V3: 34.0 (#253)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 44.9 (#54)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1352 | 1465 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 50% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek-V3: 57.4 (#130)
- GPT-6.1 Sol: 63.6 (#63)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1375 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1364 | 1432 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1449 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 77% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1472 | — |
| WildBench | 83% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 49.1% | — |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek-V3 better than GPT-6.1 Sol?

GPT-6.1 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 65.6 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3 costs 9.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6.1 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3 or GPT-6.1 Sol?

DeepSeek-V3 is cheaper. It lists at $0.24 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol lists at $2 and $10.

### Is DeepSeek-V3 or GPT-6.1 Sol better for coding?

GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 63.2 versus 42.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-6.1 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 164K.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3 and GPT-6.1 Sol share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3 has 60 scored results on Noometry and GPT-6.1 Sol has 34.