Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs GPT-5.5
Head-to-head evidence from 25 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); GPT-5.5 #9 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and GPT-5.5 share 25 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 32 to GPT-5.5.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 25
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 13
- GPT-5.5 only
- 32
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick GPT-5.5 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 25 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-5.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 73.51 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 81.6 against 70.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 63.3% to 82%. 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-5.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $30.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 34.5x on output cost alone.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | Margin← 46.4 | GPT-5.547.6 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin← 11.2 | GPT-5.558.6 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | Margin→ 11.0 | GPT-5.581.6 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin→ 0.8 | GPT-5.557.8 |
| Reasoning | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.585.0 |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.570.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 63.3%B 82%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 18.7Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; GPT-5.5 scored 82%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.5%B 52.2%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 17.7HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; GPT-5.5 scored 52.2%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 93.6%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 4.5GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 54.4%B 58.6%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 4.2SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; GPT-5.5 scored 58.6%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 80.4%B 84.4%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 4BrowseComp: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%; GPT-5.5 scored 84.4%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | GPT-5.5$5 input / $30 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | GPT-5.5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | GPT-5.5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | GPT-5.51M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.5 wins25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 82% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | 84.4% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | 75.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | 55.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 93.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 49.5% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 1490 | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 44.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | — | 81.8% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 78.7% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 37.7% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 72.93% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 17.0% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 13.0% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 42.7% | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | — | 13.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1154 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 42.1% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 46.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 86.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 45.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 31.3% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | 58.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | 82.0% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 56.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 74.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 69.85% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 59.2% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 58.4% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 43.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRCR 1MSource | 83.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CorpusQA 1MSource | 56.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | 65.0% | 74.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| CritPtSource | 10.0% | 27.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| MRCR v2 64K-128KSource | — | 83.1% | Not comparable |
| MRCR v2 128K-256KSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-2Source | — | 85% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 93.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | 93.6% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 52.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 54.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 93.5% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 44.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | 20.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 56.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 85.5% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 94.0% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | — | 51.7% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 51.700% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 35.400% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | GPT-5.5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 75.9% | GPT-5.5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.5?
GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 63.3% and 82%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.5?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.8 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.5?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 58.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or GPT-5.5?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 47.6. GPT-5.5 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-5.5?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.6 versus 70.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.