Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | — | 671B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 200k | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.27SiliconFlow |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.00SiliconFlow |
| — | $104SiliconFlow · fp8 | |
| Benchmarks | ||
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 33.3% | 80.7% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 10% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 68.4% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 57.8% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 74.9% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Release date | Mar 4 2024 | Sep 22 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude 3 HaikuvsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGPT-6.1 SolClaude 3 HaikuvsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGemini 4 ArgonClaude 3 HaikuvsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMuse Spark OpenClaude 3 HaikuvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGrok 4.7Claude 3 HaikuvsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMistral Large 4Claude 3 HaikuvsKimi K3DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads Claude 3 Haiku on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Claude 3 Haiku shipped 567 days before DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 200k (Claude 3 Haiku) vs 128k (DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus). Claude 3 Haiku is closed, while DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus is open weight.
On GPQA Diamond, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus leads at 80.7% vs Claude 3 Haiku at 33.3%.