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 | 70B |
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. | 128k | 16k |
| 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. | $0.256DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.712DeepInfra | — |
| — | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 42% | — |
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. | 40.5% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 59.1% | — |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | 88.5% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Meta |
| Release date | Dec 26 2024 | Jan 29 2024 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3 ChatvsClaude Haiku 5.5Code Llama 70BvsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3 ChatvsGPT-6.1 SolCode Llama 70BvsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek V3 ChatvsGemini 4 ArgonCode Llama 70BvsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3 ChatvsGrok 4.7Code Llama 70BvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3 ChatvsMistral Large 4Code Llama 70BvsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3 ChatvsKimi K3Code Llama 70BvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3 Chat and Code Llama 70B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Code Llama 70B shipped 332 days before DeepSeek V3 Chat, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek V3 Chat has 671B parameters, while Code Llama 70B has 70B. Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3 Chat) vs 16k (Code Llama 70B).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek V3 Chat and Code Llama 70B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.