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 | 1M |
| 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. | — | $0.30 |
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. | — | $2.50 |
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. | — | $0.03 |
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. | $0.25DeepInfra | $0.15Google AI Studio |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.95DeepInfra | $1.25Google AI Studio |
| $97.50DeepInfra · fp4 | $185Google list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 19% |
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. | 66% | — |
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. | 74.8% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 15.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | |
| Release date | Aug 21 2025 | Apr 17 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek V3.1vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.5 FlashvsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek V3.1vsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 FlashvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1vsMistral Large 4Gemini 2.5 FlashvsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1vsKimi K3Gemini 2.5 FlashvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 2.5 Flash has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek V3.1. Gemini 2.5 Flash shipped 126 days before DeepSeek V3.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (DeepSeek V3.1) vs 1M (Gemini 2.5 Flash). DeepSeek V3.1 is open weight, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek V3.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.