Model comparison
DeepSeek V3.2 vs GPT-5.4
Head-to-head evidence from 17 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-5.4 #8 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and GPT-5.4 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 35 to GPT-5.4.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 2
- GPT-5.4 only
- 35
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.4 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74.24 to 55.4. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 42.5 against 17.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 22.100% to 47.600%. DeepSeek V3.2 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 35.7x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 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-5.4 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, 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-5.4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V3.217.1 | Margin→ 25.4 | GPT-5.442.5 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V3.260.9 | Margin← 3.2 | GPT-5.457.7 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.477.2 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.457.6 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.473.2 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 22.100%B 47.600%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 25.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%; GPT-5.4 scored 47.600%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.100%B 27.100%Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 25FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%; GPT-5.4 scored 27.100%. GPT-5.4 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-5.4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | GPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | GPT-5.474 tok/s | GPT-5.4 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | GPT-5.4151.79 s | DeepSeek V3.2 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3.2128K | GPT-5.41.05M | GPT-5.4 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 40.2% | 60.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | 18.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 78.9% | 87.1% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 29.57% | 64.89% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 79.0% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 82.7% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 75% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 54.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 41.1% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1395 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 6.0% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V3.2 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 71.5% | 85.3% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.7% | 56.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.7% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 67.42% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 71.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 51.4% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.1% | 92.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 10.5% | 41.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.7% | 5.7% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 50.0% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.5% | 88.6% | GPT-5.4 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 40.1% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 59.6% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 48.1% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1206 | 1252 | GPT-5.4 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 53.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 85.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 41.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 77.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | GPT-5.4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 49.0% | 73.9% | GPT-5.4 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 55.4. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 22.100% and 47.600%.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3.2 or GPT-5.4?
DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 57.7. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or GPT-5.4?
GPT-5.4 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 42.5 versus 17.1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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.