Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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.

55.47/100
Margin
3.0pts
winning →
GPT-5.2
OpenAI
58.43/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); GPT-5.2 #64 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GPT-5.2 share 16 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 12 to GPT-5.2.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
16
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
22
GPT-5.2 only
12
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick GPT-5.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

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

GPT-5.2 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.43 versus 55.47. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

GPT-5.2's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 92.4 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 80.4% to 65.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 16.1x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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 Pro (High) and GPT-5.2
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔGPT-5.2
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0Margin← 58.8GPT-5.235.2
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0Margin→ 35.4GPT-5.292.4
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin← 14.9GPT-5.255.7
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8Margin→ 0.8GPT-5.270.6
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGPT-5.252.9
MultimodalDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)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 Pro (High)B · GPT-5.2

  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 80.4%B 65.8%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 14.6
    BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%; GPT-5.2 scored 65.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.1%B 92.4%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 3.3
    GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; GPT-5.2 scored 92.4%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 54.4%B 55.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 1.2
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; GPT-5.2 scored 55.6%. GPT-5.2 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.4%B 80%
    Winner: GPT-5.2Δ 0.6
    SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; 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 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputGPT-5.2$1.75 input / $14 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGPT-5.273 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGPT-5.2130.34 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MGPT-5.2400KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 80.4%65.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 49%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%84.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 39.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1299—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%—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 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%80%GPT-5.2 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%55.6%GPT-5.2 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%52.1%GPT-5.2 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —53.50%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%72.7%GPT-5.2 leads
CritPtSource 10.0%11.6%GPT-5.2 leads
ARC-AGI-2Source —52.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeGPT-5.2 wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%92.4%GPT-5.2 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%42.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%90.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%35.4%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%-1.0%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%43.8%GPT-5.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%79.7%GPT-5.2 leads
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%—Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—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 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12641224DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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 Pro (High)GPT-5.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%75.4%GPT-5.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.43 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 80.4% and 65.8%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 92.4 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 69.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 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 Pro (High) or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 55.7. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.