DeepSeek V3.2 vs Grok Code Fast 1
In our testing DeepSeek V3.2 is the better all-round choice: it wins 8 of 12 benchmarks and excels at structured output, long-context, and faithfulness while costing less on output tokens. Grok Code Fast 1 is the pick if your priority is tool calling and classification and you need visible reasoning traces, but its output cost ($1.50/mTok) is substantially higher than DeepSeek's $0.38/mTok.
deepseek
DeepSeek V3.2
Benchmark Scores
External Benchmarks
Pricing
Input
$0.260/MTok
Output
$0.380/MTok
modelpicker.net
xai
Grok Code Fast 1
Benchmark Scores
External Benchmarks
Pricing
Input
$0.200/MTok
Output
$1.50/MTok
modelpicker.net
Benchmark Analysis
Across our 12-test suite DeepSeek V3.2 wins 8 tests, Grok Code Fast 1 wins 2, with 2 ties. Test-by-test (score A = DeepSeek, B = Grok) and what it means: - structured_output: 5 vs 4 — DeepSeek tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 24 other models"); choose DeepSeek when strict JSON/schema compliance matters. - long_context: 5 vs 4 — DeepSeek tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 36 other models"); better for retrieval or work with 30K+ tokens. - faithfulness: 5 vs 4 — DeepSeek tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 32 other models"); fewer hallucinations in our tests. - persona_consistency: 5 vs 4 — DeepSeek tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 36 other models"); holds character and resists injection better. - multilingual: 5 vs 4 — DeepSeek tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 34 other models"); stronger non-English parity in our testing. - strategic_analysis: 5 vs 3 — DeepSeek tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 25 other models"); stronger nuanced tradeoff reasoning. - constrained_rewriting: 4 vs 3 — DeepSeek ranks 6th of 53; better at tight compression tasks. - creative_problem_solving: 4 vs 3 — DeepSeek ranks 9th of 54; produces more feasible, specific ideas in our tests. - tool_calling: 3 vs 4 — Grok ranks 18 of 54 vs DeepSeek 47 of 54; Grok is superior at selecting functions, arguments and sequencing calls. - classification: 3 vs 4 — Grok ties for 1st ("tied for 1st with 29 other models"); better at routing/categorization tasks. - agentic_planning: 5 vs 5 (tie) — both tied for 1st ("tied for 1st with 14 other models"); both decompose goals and recover from failures well in our suite. - safety_calibration: 2 vs 2 (tie) — both rank 12 of 55; neither differentiates on safety refusals in our tests. In short: DeepSeek leads on format fidelity, long-context retrieval, faithfulness and complex reasoning. Grok leads on function/tool orchestration and raw classification accuracy.
Pricing Analysis
DeepSeek V3.2 input $0.26/mTok, output $0.38/mTok. Grok Code Fast 1 input $0.20/mTok, output $1.50/mTok. At realistic volumes assuming a 50/50 input/output split: 1M tokens (500k in / 500k out) costs DeepSeek $320 vs Grok $850 — Grok is $530/month more. At 10M tokens: DeepSeek $3,200 vs Grok $8,500 — Grok is $5,300/month more. At 100M tokens: DeepSeek $32,000 vs Grok $85,000 — Grok is $53,000/month more. Teams with heavy generation (large output volumes) or tight margins should prefer DeepSeek to cut costs; teams that primarily pay for brief inputs but need Grok's tool-call behavior will see smaller input-side savings but much larger output bills with Grok.
Real-World Cost Comparison
Bottom Line
Choose DeepSeek V3.2 if you need: reliable structured outputs (JSON/schema), long-context retrieval (30K+), high faithfulness, multilingual parity, and lower output-costs for heavy-generation workloads. Choose Grok Code Fast 1 if you need: better tool calling and classification behavior, visible reasoning traces for developer steering, or you prioritize input-side cost savings despite much higher output pricing.
How We Test
We test every model against our 12-benchmark suite covering tool calling, agentic planning, creative problem solving, safety calibration, and more. Each test is scored 1–5 by an LLM judge. Read our full methodology.