llmrun

DeepSeek V3.1 — Benchmarks

Benchmark scores for DeepSeek V3.1 aggregated from public leaderboards (8 boards), with how it ranks among open models and how it compares with its nearest neighbours. See hardware requirements for what you need to run it.

llmrun Composite Score →

100.2

90% range 95.4–105.0 · from 7 boards

DeepSeek V3.1 reasoning benchmarks

Multi-step logic and problem-solving — can the model think through a hard problem rather than recall an answer.

  • SimpleBench

    40.0%

    median 40.8%open leader 61.1%

    Overall best: Claude Fable 5 Max 81.9%

    46th percentile · #14 of 25 open · #72 of 101 all

    Independent

    Epoch AI ·

  • DTBench

    82.7%

    median 68.7%open leader 93.9%

    Overall best: Claude Opus 5.5 Max 98.9%

    73rd percentile · #19 of 70 open · #120 of 235 all

    Lab-reported

    Epoch AI ·

  • Fiction.LiveBench

    52.8%

    median 61.1%open leader 86.1%

    Overall best: GPT 5 (Aug 07, 2025, medium) 97.2%

    33rd percentile · #17 of 25 open · #40 of 58 all

    Independent

    Epoch AI ·

  • ForecastBench

    60.7

    median 61.5open leader 64.7

    Overall best: GPT 5.5 (high) 67.0

    33rd percentile · #16 of 24 open · #75 of 92 all

    Lab-reported

    Epoch AI ·

  • LMCA

    24.3%

    median 25.5%open leader 55.5%

    Overall best: Claude Sonnet 5.5 Max 68.3%

    45th percentile · #31 of 56 open · #154 of 197 all

    Lab-reported

    Epoch AI ·

DeepSeek V3.1 coding benchmarks

Writing, editing, and fixing real code — measured by whether the resulting program actually runs and passes tests.

  • WeirdML

    38.4%

    median 39.5%open leader 82.6%

    Overall best: GPT 6 Astra Promax 93.6%

    41st percentile · #28 of 47 open · #116 of 162 all

    Independent

    Epoch AI ·

DeepSeek V3.1 knowledge benchmarks

Breadth and depth of factual knowledge across many subjects, paired with the reasoning to apply it.

  • MMLU-Pro

    84.8%

    median 52.0%open leader 88.0%

    Overall best: Gemini-3.1-Pro 91.2%

    94th percentile · #9 of 146 open · #35 of 257 all

    Independent

    TIGER-Lab

DeepSeek V3.1 instruction following benchmarks

How precisely a model obeys explicit, verifiable instructions — format, length, and content constraints — and, more broadly, how much people prefer its responses head-to-head in blind human voting.

  • LMArena Text

    1416.9

    median 1321.4open leader 1488.2

    Overall best: Gemini 4 Carbon (High) 1527.5

    81st percentile · #37 of 188 open · #133 of 408 all

    Arena

    Arena ·

Score vs VRAM in the ≤512 GB tier

  • DeepSeek V3.1
  • Other models
  • Best Score for its VRAM

#52 of 102 that fit ≤512 GB

Each dot is a model at the best quant that fits ≤512 GB. The line steps up to the best Score available at each amount of VRAM; a dot below it is beaten by a model that needs no more memory.

Full ≤512 GB ranking →

DeepSeek V3.1 vs its neighbours

Same boards for the nearest open models per llmrun Score. The highest score in each row is marked.

BoardDeepSeek V3.1this modelQwen3.8 27Bbest in classQ4_K_M · 18 GBGLM 4.5nearest by ScoreQ4_K_M · 218 GBKimi K2 Instructnearest by ScoreQ4_K_M · 617 GBDeepSeek R1nearest by ScoreQ4_K_M · 412 GB
llmrun Score100.2122.0100.9100.198.9
SimpleBench40.0%——26.3%30.9%
DTBench82.7%88.0%———
Fiction.LiveBench52.8%—58.3%61.1%69.4%
ForecastBench60.7——62.2—
LMCA24.3%41.4%———
WeirdML38.4%—40.6%39.4%36.5%
MMLU-Pro84.8%—84.6%81.0%84.0%
LMArena Text1416.91435.61410.91417.81398.1
Compare head to headCompareCompareCompareCompare

Scores aggregated from public benchmark sources (Epoch AI: 6 boards, Arena: 1 board, TIGER-Lab: 1 board) — each linked from the benchmark pages. llmrun does not run these benchmarks. Percentiles and ranks are among open models in the llmrun catalogue; the median and leader marks refer to the same field.