Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 117B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.25DeepInfra | $0.03AkashML |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.95DeepInfra | $0.15Venice |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 62.4% |
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% | 19% |
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. | — | 12% |
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 · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 14.9% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 80.1% |
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. | — | 90% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Release date | Aug 21 2025 | Aug 5 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek V3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5gpt-oss-120bvsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V3.1vsGemini 4 Argongpt-oss-120bvsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek V3.1vsMuse Spark 1.3gpt-oss-120bvsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek V3.1vsGrok 4.7gpt-oss-120bvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek V3.1vsMistral Large 4gpt-oss-120bvsMistral Large 4DeepSeek V3.1vsKimi K3gpt-oss-120bvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek V3.1 and gpt-oss-120b are evenly matched across the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, Humanity's Last Exam). gpt-oss-120b shipped 16 days before DeepSeek V3.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Verified, DeepSeek V3.1 leads at 66% vs gpt-oss-120b at 62.4%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, gpt-oss-120b leads at 19% vs DeepSeek V3.1 at 15.9%.