Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V3.2 vs o3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.4/100
Margin
7.5pts
← winning
OpenAI
47.89/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported); o3 #131 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and o3 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 2 to o3.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
14
DeepSeek V3.2 only
5
o3 only
2
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.4 to 47.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

DeepSeek V3.2's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 17.1 against 14.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 22.100% to 18.685%.

o3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 19.0x on output cost alone. o3 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. o3 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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V3.2 and o3
CategoryDeepSeek V3.2Δo3
MathDeepSeek V3.217.1Margin 2.6o314.5
CodingDeepSeek V3.260.9MarginNo overlapo3Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V3.2B · o3
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.100%B 18.685%
    Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 3.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%; o3 scored 18.685%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark.
  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.100%B 2.083%
    Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 0
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%; o3 scored 2.083%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V3.2o3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 outputo3$2 input / $8 outputDeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V3.235 tok/so3118 tok/so3 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V3.23.75 so35.38 sDeepSeek V3.2 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V3.2128Ko3200Ko3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
Claw-EvalSource 40.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 18.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 78.9%80.7%o3 leads
Gert LabsSource 29.57%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
SWE-RebenchSource 60.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 71.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 38.7%41.0%o3 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
AA-LCRSource 39.0%69.3%o3 leads
CritPtSource 0.9%1.1%o3 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 24.7%30.4%o3 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.1%82.7%o3 leads
AA-HLESource 10.5%20.0%o3 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -46.7%-15.3%o3 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.2%38.4%o3 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 93.5%87.1%o3 leads
MathDeepSeek V3.2 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 22.100%18.685%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.100%2.083%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
AA MATH-500Source 99.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12061069DeepSeek V3.2 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2o3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 49.0%71.4%o3 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or o3?

DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.4 to 47.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 22.100% and 18.685%.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or o3?

DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 17.1 versus 14.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 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.