Compare/GPT-4.1 mini vs DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)

GPT-4.1 minivsDeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

OpenAI

GPT-4.1 mini

Input
$0.4/M
Output
$1.6/M
Speed
86 tok/s
TTFT
0.84s
DeepSeek

DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)

Input
$0.59/M
Output
$1.69/M
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
GPT-4.1 mini
Faster (tok/s)
GPT-4.1 mini
Lower Latency
GPT-4.1 mini
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricGPT-4.1 miniDeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)
Input ($/M tokens)$0.4$0.59
Output ($/M tokens)$1.6$1.69
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
GPT-4.1 mini$0.56
DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)$0.76

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
GPT-4.1 mini
86 tok/s
DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
GPT-4.1 mini
0.84s
DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GPT-4.1 mini and DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning) split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 0.9× the per-million-token cost, GPT-4.1 mini is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). GPT-4.1 mini makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. GPT-4.1 mini is strongest on Coding Index (20.2), Intelligence Index (14.8). DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (21.0).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. OpenAI and DeepSeek sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: OpenAI tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while DeepSeek often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): GPT-4.1 mini costs $36.00 ($432/year); DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning) costs $43.05 ($517/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): GPT-4.1 mini ≈ $5.20/run, DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning) ≈ $6.33/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): GPT-4.1 mini ≈ $240/run, DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning) ≈ $287/run. GPT-4.1 mini becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
14.821.0
Coding Index
20.2
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
GPT-4.1 mini1 wins
1 winsDeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 mini or DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)?

GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.70/M tokens vs $0.86/M for DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GPT-4.1 mini generates tokens faster at 86 tok/s vs — tok/s. GPT-4.1 mini also has lower time-to-first-token (0.84s vs —s).

When should I use GPT-4.1 mini vs DeepSeek V3.1 (Reasoning)?

Choose based on your priorities: GPT-4.1 mini for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and GPT-4.1 mini for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.