Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) vs GPT-5.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No comparison
OpenAI
58.43/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) 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 (Max) and GPT-5.2 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max); 12 to GPT-5.2.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
16
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) only
29
GPT-5.2 only
12
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) makes more sense if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; GPT-5.2 is the better fit if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 (Max) 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 also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max). That is roughly 50.0x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.2.

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 V4 Flash (Max) and GPT-5.2
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)ΔGPT-5.2
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)94.8Margin 59.6GPT-5.235.2
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)55.3Margin 37.1GPT-5.292.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)63.8Margin 8.1GPT-5.255.7
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)68.8Margin 1.8GPT-5.270.6
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.252.9
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.280.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)B · GPT-5.2
  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 73.2%B 65.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 7.4
    BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 73.2%; GPT-5.2 scored 65.8%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 88.1%B 92.4%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 4.3
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 88.1%; GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 52.6%B 55.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 3
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 52.6%; GPT-5.2 scored 55.6%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.
  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79%B 80%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 1
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 79%; GPT-5.2 scored 80%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not availableGPT-5.273 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not availableGPT-5.2130.34 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)1MGPT-5.2400KDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.9%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 73.2%65.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 45.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 69%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1189Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 47.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 31.1%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95%84.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
GDPval-AASource 34.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 831Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 39.6%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 81.3%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 31.5%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 22.9%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 35.6%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 47.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 46.54%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 34.3%Not comparable
CodingGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
CodeforcesSource 3052.0Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79%80%GPT-5.2 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.6%55.6%GPT-5.2 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 73.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 56.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 56.2%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 44.9%52.1%GPT-5.2 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 53.50%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
MRCR 1MSource 78.7%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 60.5%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 63.0%72.7%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 7.1%11.6%GPT-5.2 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source 52.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
MMLU-ProSource 86.2%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 34.1%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 78.9%Not comparable
GPQASource 88.1%92.4%GPT-5.2 leads
GPQA-DSource 88.1%Not comparable
HLESource 34.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.3%42.2%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 89.4%90.3%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-HLESource 32.1%35.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -22.9%-1.0%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 37.2%43.8%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 95.8%79.7%GPT-5.2 leads
AA Openness IndexSource 50.0%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.8%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.4%Not comparable
ApexSource 33.0%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.7%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
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12381224DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
MMMU-ProSource 79.5%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 83.0%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.1%Not comparable
V*Source 75.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)GPT-5.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 79.2%75.4%DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) 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 (Max) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 55.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 68.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94.8 versus 35.2. GPT-5.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 55.7. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.