Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
DeepSeek LLM 2.0 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 70 to 23. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek LLM 2.0's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 79.5 against 9.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is AIME 2024, 82 to 9.8.
GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for DeepSeek LLM 2.0.
Pick DeepSeek LLM 2.0 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
DeepSeek LLM 2.0
65.2
GPT-4.1 nano
65.2
DeepSeek LLM 2.0
79.5
GPT-4.1 nano
9.8
DeepSeek LLM 2.0
85
GPT-4.1 nano
83.2
DeepSeek LLM 2.0 is ahead overall, 70 to 23. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME 2024, where the scores are 82 and 9.8.
DeepSeek LLM 2.0 and GPT-4.1 nano are effectively tied for knowledge tasks here, both landing at 65.2 on average.
DeepSeek LLM 2.0 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 79.5 versus 9.8. Inside this category, AIME 2024 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
DeepSeek LLM 2.0 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 85 versus 83.2. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.