Model comparison
DeepSeek V3.2 vs GPT-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported); GPT-5.1 #94 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and GPT-5.1 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 6 to GPT-5.1.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 4
- GPT-5.1 only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.1 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V3.2 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.4 versus 53.65. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GPT-5.1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 23.8x on output cost alone. GPT-5.1 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GPT-5.1 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V3.2 | Δ | GPT-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V3.217.1 | Margin→ 9.3 | GPT-5.126.4 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V3.260.9 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.100%B 12.500%Winner: GPT-5.1Δ 10.4FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%; GPT-5.1 scored 12.500%. GPT-5.1 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 22.100%B 31.034%Winner: GPT-5.1Δ 8.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%; GPT-5.1 scored 31.034%. GPT-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | GPT-5.1$1.25 input / $10 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | GPT-5.1111 tok/s | GPT-5.1 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | GPT-5.157.47 s | DeepSeek V3.2 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3.2128K | GPT-5.1200K | GPT-5.1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 18.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 78.9% | 81.9% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 29.57% | 41.24% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 24.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 987 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 36.9% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.1% | 87.3% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 10.5% | 26.5% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.7% | 5.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 37.6% | GPT-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.5% | 51.3% | GPT-5.1 leads |
MathGPT-5.1 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 49.0% | 72.9% | GPT-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or GPT-5.1?
DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.4 to 53.65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 2.100% and 12.500%.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or GPT-5.1?
GPT-5.1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 26.4 versus 17.1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.