Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash Base vs GPT-5.2

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.
No comparison
OpenAI
58.43/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash Base unranked (Not scored); GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base and GPT-5.2 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 24 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash Base; 28 to GPT-5.2.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
DeepSeek V4 Flash Base only
24
GPT-5.2 only
28
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; GPT-5.2 is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

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 V4 Flash Base and GPT-5.2 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.

GPT-5.2 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash Base 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. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.2.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot availableGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot availableGPT-5.273 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot availableGPT-5.2130.34 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash Base1MGPT-5.2400KDeepSeek V4 Flash Base lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
BrowseCompSource 65.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 46.54%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 34.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
BigCodeBenchSource 56.8%Not comparable
HumanEvalSource 69.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 55.6%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 52.1%Not comparable
ReasoningGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
BBHSource 86.9%Not comparable
DROPSource 88.6%Not comparable
HellaSwagSource 85.7%Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource 79.5%Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource 82.2%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source 44.7%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 72.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 11.6%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
AGIEvalSource 82.6%Not comparable
MMLUSource 88.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 89.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 68.3%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 88.8%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.1%Not comparable
CMMLUSource 90.4%Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource 42.2%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 30.1%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 46.5%Not comparable
FACTS ParametricSource 33.9%Not comparable
TriviaQASource 82.8%Not comparable
GPQASource 92.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.2%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 35.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -1.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 79.7%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
GSM8KSource 90.8%Not comparable
MATHSource 57.4%Not comparable
CMathSource 93.6%Not comparable
AA AIME 2025Source 99.0%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 18.800%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
MGSMSource 85.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
MMMU-ProSource 79.5%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 83.0%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.1%Not comparable
V*Source 75.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1224Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash BaseGPT-5.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 75.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash Base or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Base and GPT-5.2 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 knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash Base or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 56.4. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for reasoning, DeepSeek V4 Flash Base or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 52.9 versus 44.7. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base 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.