Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-5.2

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads GPT-5.2 on coding, 70.3 to 55.9 on the Vibe Coding Index, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs 23.3x less per output token ($0.60 vs $14.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 21 benchmarks have a result for both.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek
Coding
70.3
Overall
67.6
Output $/M
$0.60
19
GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
55.9
Overall
60.7
Output $/M
$14.00
1
vs boards won of 21 shared, 1 tied

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or GPT-5.2: which to pick

Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for coding: it scores 70.3 on the Vibe Coding Index against 55.9 for GPT-5.2.

Pick GPT-5.2 for work measured by Chess puzzles, where it leads.

Shared results
21
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 only
18
GPT-5.2 only
93
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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 V4.1 Flash 1017 70.3 from 4 benchmarks, GPT-5.2 55.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 27.4 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena WebDev: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1664 against GPT-5.2 1417, 35.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.60 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 23.3x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 takes 1.05M tokens, GPT-5.2 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 V4.1 Flash 1017BarsGPT-5.2Ties
Coding40
Intelligence10
Reasoning31
Math30
Knowledge10
Web design70
General001 tie
All shared boards1911 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveBench coding96.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LMArena WebDev16641417DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured85.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)31.8%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)87.7%53.5%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Code migration (Vals AI)44.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured89.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SciCode55.9%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured47.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured64.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GSO-BenchNot measured27.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
WeirdMLNot measured72.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ALE-Bench1622.01293.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1442Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1434Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1667Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML16871427DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index39.530.4DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured153.7Only GPT-5.2 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1043Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1093Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1059Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: spreadsheets1245Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LiveBench research79.5%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LiveBench browser76.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LiveBench long agentic50.9%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)57.0%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)44.4%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)45.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)14.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured84.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
METR time horizonsNot measured75.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Remote Labor IndexNot measured2.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GDPvalNot measured49.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured41.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$3,591Only GPT-5.2 measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured55.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index31
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured91.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveBench reasoning89.1%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured86.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured90.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)43.3%37.7%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)93.2%91.4%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
ARC-AGINot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured52.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured45.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Chess puzzles46.0%48.0%GPT-5.2
Mystery game puzzles49.0%23.0%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
EBR-benchNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
VPCTNot measured84.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1428Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1445Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1431Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1265Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1276Only GPT-5.2 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured73.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
AIMENot measured96.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured94.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured99.0Only GPT-5.2 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured99.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
OTIS Mock AIME99.4%96.1%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 371.2%67.4%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
FrontierMath, tier 446.3%31.7%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
ProofBenchNot measured15.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1440Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1442Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured66.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured65.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured49.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured87.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleQA Verified42.5%37.1%DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1425Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1425Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1427Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1414Only GPT-5.2 measured
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured48.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: websites13111195DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Design Arena: UI components13031190DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Design Arena: game dev13571195DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Design Arena: data viz13301202DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Design Arena: 3D13581079DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Design Arena: all code categories13321170DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1139Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art12421152DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
LiveBench design83.4%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index00
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
Vals Index61.3%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
LiveBench data analysis79.5%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured84.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
IFBenchNot measured75.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)82.7%82.7%Tie
DTBenchNot measured90.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMCANot measured43.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CL-benchNot measured18.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured38.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1416Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1409Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1376Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1246Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1422Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1447Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1444Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1420Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1374Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1454Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1413Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1415Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1426Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1419Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1413Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1392Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1378Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1243Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1305Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1257Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1227Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1267Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1232Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1225Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017GPT-5.2Leader
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 V4.1 Flash 1017$0.0004Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.0093Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.036Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.490Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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 V4.1 Flash 1017 and GPT-5.2
SpecificationDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017OpenAI GPT-5.2
MakerDeepSeekOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedOctober 17, 2026December 10, 2025
Context window1.05M400K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$1.75
Output $/Mtok$0.60$14.00
Coding index70.355.9
Independent measurements behind it43
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.91
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than GPT-5.2 for coding?

Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for coding: it scores 70.3 on the Vibe Coding Index against 55.9 for GPT-5.2. Pick GPT-5.2 for work measured by Chess puzzles, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 and $14.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or GPT-5.2?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, with 1.05M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?

21 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017's coding index rests on 4 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.2's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-vs-gpt-5-2" title="DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-5.2, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-vs-gpt-5-2">LLMBenchmark.ai, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-5.2</a></p>