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 | 200k |
| 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 | — | |
| 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. | 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% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.7% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Release date | Sep 22 2025 | May 16 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsClaude Fable 5.2codex-mini-latestvsClaude Fable 5.2DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGemini 4 Carboncodex-mini-latestvsGemini 4 CarbonDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMuse Embercodex-mini-latestvsMuse EmberDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsGrok 4.7codex-mini-latestvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsMistral Large 4codex-mini-latestvsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusvsKimi K3.1 Procodex-mini-latestvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and codex-mini-latest don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. codex-mini-latest shipped 129 days before DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus) vs 200k (codex-mini-latest). DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus is open weight, while codex-mini-latest is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and codex-mini-latest don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.