Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V3.2 vs MAI-Thinking-1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
55.4/100
No comparison
N/A
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and MAI-Thinking-1 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 13 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
DeepSeek V3.2 only
19
MAI-Thinking-1 only
13
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V3.2 makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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

DeepSeek V3.2 and MAI-Thinking-1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

MAI-Thinking-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. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 outputMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V3.235 tok/sMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V3.23.75 sMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V3.2128KMAI-Thinking-1256KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
Claw-EvalSource 40.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 18.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 78.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 29.57%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%Not comparable
CodingMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
SWE-RebenchSource 60.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 71.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 38.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-LCRSource 39.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.9%Not comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 24.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 10.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -46.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 93.5%Not comparable
GPQASource 84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 22.100%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.100%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 97%Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1204Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2MAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 49.0%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or MAI-Thinking-1?

DeepSeek V3.2 and MAI-Thinking-1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3.2 or MAI-Thinking-1?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.5 versus 60.9. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or MAI-Thinking-1?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 17.1. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.