GPT-4o-mini vs DeepSeek V3.2Benchmark Comparison 2026

Objective comparison based on public benchmarks updated weekly: Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond, Chatbot Arena ELO, pricing and speed.

Overall winner (2026)

DeepSeek V3.2

4 of 7 criteria won

OpenAI

GPT-4o-mini

Intelligence Index

12.6

3 criteria won

View full profile

DeepSeek

DeepSeek V3.2

Winner

Intelligence Index

32.1

Coding Index

34.6

4 criteria won

View full profile

Detailed Comparison

CritérioGPT-4o-miniDeepSeek V3.2
Chatbot Arena ELO
Intelligence Index (AA)12.632.1
Coding Index (AA)34.6
GPQA Diamond42.6%75.0%
Input price ($/1M tok)$0.15$0.50
Output price ($/1M tok)$0.60$1.60
Context window128K tokens131K tokens
Speed (tokens/s)57 tok/s

✓ = winner in this criterion • Source: Artificial Analysis, LMArena, official APIs • Updated weekly

Technical Specifications

GPT-4o-mini

Company
OpenAI
Context window
128K tokens
Input ($/1M tok)
$0.15
Output ($/1M tok)
$0.60
Speed
57 tok/s
Release
Jul 2024
Multimodal
Yes
Open Source
No

DeepSeek V3.2

Company
DeepSeek
Context window
131K tokens
Input ($/1M tok)
$0.50
Output ($/1M tok)
$1.60
0
Release
Dec 2025
Multimodal
No
Open Source
Yes
Official website
Visit

When to use GPT-4o-mini vs DeepSeek V3.2?

Choosing between GPT-4o-mini and DeepSeek V3.2 depends on your use case, budget and technical requirements. Below, a practical guide based on benchmark data and each model's specifications.

Use GPT-4o-mini when:

OpenAI · Multimodal

  • High-volume token projects — at $0.15/1M input tokens, the cost per call is low enough for production use at scale
  • Processing images, PDFs and visual documents alongside text — useful for analyzing contracts, reports with charts and mixed content
  • Long document analysis — 128K tokens context window allows processing books, legal databases and extensive logs
  • AI agents with tool calling — workflow automation, external API integration and data pipelines
  • API integration in SaaS applications — direct API access with documented SLA
View full GPT-4o-mini profile

Use DeepSeek V3.2 when:

DeepSeek · Text · Open Source

  • Complex reasoning, math and advanced programming — reasoning models are optimized for problems requiring multiple logical steps
  • High-volume token projects — at $0.5/1M input tokens, the cost per call is low enough for production use at scale
  • Self-hosted projects with privacy requirements — ideal for sensitive data that cannot leave your own infrastructure
  • Long document analysis — 131K tokens context window allows processing books, legal databases and extensive logs
  • AI agents with tool calling — workflow automation, external API integration and data pipelines
View full DeepSeek V3.2 profile
SWEN Verdict: DeepSeek V3.2 wins in more objective criteria in this comparison (4 vs 3). For most use cases, DeepSeek V3.2 offers better aggregate performance — but GPT-4o-mini may be preferable if your project prioritizes high-volume token projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

GPT-4o-mini or DeepSeek V3.2: which is better?

DeepSeek V3.2 wins in 4 of 7 criteria analyzed. Check the full table to choose based on your use case.

Where does this benchmark data come from?

Data is aggregated from Artificial Analysis (Intelligence Index, Coding Index) and Chatbot Arena/LMArena (ELO). Pricing and specs come from official APIs. Updated weekly.

What is the Intelligence Index?

The Intelligence Index is an aggregate score from Artificial Analysis that combines multiple academic benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA, LiveBench, etc.) into a single rating. The higher the score, the more capable the model is at reasoning tasks.

Is GPT-4o-mini cheaper than DeepSeek V3.2?

Yes. GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15/1M input tokens, while DeepSeek V3.2 costs $0.5/1M tokens — 233% more expensive. For high-volume projects, GPT-4o-mini represents significant savings. Total cost also depends on output pricing and your application's usage pattern.

GPT-4o-mini or DeepSeek V3.2: which has a larger context window?

DeepSeek V3.2 has the larger context window: 131K tokens vs 128K tokens. For long document analysis, extensive transcripts or full codebases, the larger context window is a decisive criterion.

Other Comparisons

claude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-5claude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-5-proclaude-opus-4-7 vs deepseek-v4-proclaude-opus-4-7 vs deepseek-v3-2claude-opus-4-7 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewclaude-opus-4-7 vs grok-4-3claude-opus-4-7 vs o4-miniclaude-opus-4-7 vs gpt-5-4gpt-5-5 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgpt-5-5 vs grok-4-3gpt-5-5 vs deepseek-v4-progpt-5-5 vs deepseek-v3-2gpt-5-5 vs o4-minigpt-5-5-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-5-5-pro vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgpt-5-5-pro vs deepseek-v4-progpt-5-5-pro vs grok-4-3gemini-3-1-pro-preview vs claude-opus-4-7gemini-3-1-pro-preview vs deepseek-v4-progemini-3-1-pro-preview vs grok-4-3deepseek-v4-pro vs grok-4-3deepseek-v4-pro vs deepseek-v3-2deepseek-v3-2 vs grok-4-3deepseek-v3-2 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewdeepseek-v3-2 vs gemini-3-1-flash-litegrok-4-3 vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewo4-mini vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewo4-mini vs deepseek-v4-proo4-mini vs grok-4-3gemini-3-1-flash-lite vs o4-minigemini-2-5-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gemini-2-5-pro vs gpt-5-5gemini-2-5-pro vs deepseek-v4-proclaude-sonnet-4-6 vs gpt-5-4-miniclaude-sonnet-4-6 vs gemini-3-flash-previewgpt-5-4-pro vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-5-4-pro vs gemini-3-1-pro-previewgrok-4-20 vs claude-opus-4-7grok-4-20 vs gpt-5-5gpt-4o vs claude-opus-4-7gpt-4o vs gemini-2-5-progpt-4o vs deepseek-v3-2gpt-4o vs grok-4-3gpt-4o-mini vs claude-haiku-4-5gpt-4o-mini vs gemini-2-5-flasho3 vs claude-opus-4-7o3 vs r1o3 vs gemini-2-5-pror1 vs claude-opus-4-7r1 vs gpt-5-5llama-4-maverick vs claude-opus-4-7llama-4-maverick vs gpt-5-5llama-4-scout vs claude-sonnet-4-6claude-sonnet-4-6 vs claude-opus-4-7claude-sonnet-4-6 vs gemini-2-5-proView all