Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3.1 vs GPT-5.1-Codex

Updated October 21, 2026. 6 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

DeepSeek V3.1DeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
13.7
Output $/M
$1.50
0
GPT-5.1-CodexOpenAI
Coding
15.3
Overall
23.7
Output $/M
$10.00
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

DeepSeek V3.1 has the edge where output tokens cost 6.7x less.

Shared results
6
DeepSeek V3.1 only
4
GPT-5.1-Codex only
20
Like-for-like categories
2 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
DeepSeek V3.1 not benchmarked, GPT-5.1-Codex 15.3 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Web design, 10.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: UI components: DeepSeek V3.1 1085 against GPT-5.1-Codex 1237, 19.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3.1 $1.50 against GPT-5.1-Codex $10.00 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3.1 takes 164K tokens, GPT-5.1-Codex 400K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryDeepSeek V3.1BarsGPT-5.1-CodexTies
Intelligence01
Web design05
All shared boards06
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured66.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1337Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured85.5%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured13.1%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.9%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured57.8%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1244.9Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1346Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.723.7GPT-5.1-Codex
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1018Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1191Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured83.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured25.7%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured95.7Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured95.7%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
Design Arena: websites11231162GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: UI components10851237GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: game dev10841138GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: data viz10951213GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: 3D1077Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories11121152GPT-5.1-Codex
Design Arena: SVG967Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
IFBenchNot measured70.0%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured69.3%Only GPT-5.1-Codex measured
DTBench82.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 measured
LMCA24.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1GPT-5.1-CodexLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1$0.0013Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex$0.0063Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1$0.032Fits in one request
GPT-5.1-Codex$0.092Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3.1$0.125Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.1-Codex$0.350Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of DeepSeek V3.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex
SpecificationDeepSeek V3.1OpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex
MakerDeepSeekOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 21, 2025November 13, 2025
Context window164K400K
Input $/Mtok$0.55$1.25
Output $/Mtok$1.50$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked15.3
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.892
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3.1 better than GPT-5.1-Codex for coding?

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. DeepSeek V3.1 has the edge where output tokens cost 6.7x less.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3.1 or GPT-5.1-Codex?

DeepSeek V3.1 costs $0.55 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex costs $1.25 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek V3.1 or GPT-5.1-Codex?

GPT-5.1-Codex, with 400K tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3.1 vs GPT-5.1-Codex comparison based on?

6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. DeepSeek V3.1's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.1-Codex's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next