Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V3
36
DeepSeek V3.2
58
Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Coding
+21.7 difference
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3.2
$0.27 / $1.1
$0.28 / $0.42
N/A
35 t/s
N/A
3.75s
128K
128K
Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
DeepSeek V3.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 58 to 36. 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 coding, where it averages 60.9 against 39.2.
DeepSeek V3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.27 input / $1.10 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 2.6x on output cost alone.
DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 58 to 36.
DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 39.2. DeepSeek V3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.