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. | 1.6T | — |
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. | 1M | 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. | — | $1.75 |
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. | — | $14.00 |
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. | — | $0.175 |
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. | $0.90Relace | $1.75Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.50Relace | $14.00Azure |
| $255Relace · fp4 | $1,050OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 24% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 85% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 68% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 64.7% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1158 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 24 2026 | Feb 5 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-ProvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.3-CodexvsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek-V4-ProvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.3-CodexvsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek-V4-ProvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5.3-CodexvsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek-V4-ProvsGrok 4.7GPT-5.3-CodexvsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4-ProvsMistral Large 4GPT-5.3-CodexvsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4-ProvsKimi K3GPT-5.3-CodexvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.3-Codex leads DeepSeek-V4-Pro on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only GPT-5.3-Codex has a verified first-party API price: $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek-V4-Pro. GPT-5.3-Codex shipped 78 days before DeepSeek-V4-Pro, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (DeepSeek-V4-Pro) vs 400k (GPT-5.3-Codex). DeepSeek-V4-Pro is open weight, while GPT-5.3-Codex is closed.
On BullshitBench v2, GPT-5.3-Codex leads at 24% vs DeepSeek-V4-Pro at 14%.