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. | 128k | 400k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.05 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $0.40 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.005 |
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 | $0.025OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.712DeepInfra | $0.20OpenAI |
| — | $30.00OpenAI list price | |
| 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 | OpenAI |
| Release date | Dec 26 2024 | Aug 7 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3 ChatvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5 nanovsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3 ChatvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5 nanovsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3 ChatvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5 nanovsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek V3 ChatvsGrok 4.7GPT-5 nanovsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3 ChatvsMistral Large 4GPT-5 nanovsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3 ChatvsKimi K3GPT-5 nanovsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3 Chat and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5 nano has a verified first-party API price: $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek V3 Chat. DeepSeek V3 Chat shipped 224 days before GPT-5 nano, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3 Chat) vs 400k (GPT-5 nano). DeepSeek V3 Chat is open weight, while GPT-5 nano is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek V3 Chat and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.