Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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 | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $10.00 |
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. | — | $30.00 |
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. | $0.30Relace | $10.00OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.9105StreamLake | $30.00OpenAI |
| Benchmarks | ||
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.1% | 42.5% |
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 75.1% | — |
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. | 14% | — |
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. | 93.5% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.4% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 24 2026 | Nov 6 2023 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-4 TurbovsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek-V4-ProvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-4 TurbovsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek-V4-ProvsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-4 TurbovsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek-V4-ProvsGrok 4.7GPT-4 TurbovsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4-ProvsMistral Large 4GPT-4 TurbovsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4-ProvsKimi K3GPT-4 TurbovsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads GPT-4 Turbo on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Only GPT-4 Turbo has a verified first-party API price: $10.00 per million input tokens and $30.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek-V4-Pro. GPT-4 Turbo shipped 900 days before DeepSeek-V4-Pro, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro is open weight, while GPT-4 Turbo is closed.
On GPQA Diamond, DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads at 90.1% vs GPT-4 Turbo at 42.5%.