Grok 3 vs. Deepseek r1: A deep analysis
Shrijal Acharya

Shrijal Acharya @shricodev

About: Full Stack SDE • Open-Source Contributor • Collaborator @Oppia • Mail for collaboration

Location:
Kathmandu, Nepal
Joined:
Jul 26, 2023

Grok 3 vs. Deepseek r1: A deep analysis

Publish Date: Feb 21
59 32

Almost everyone now knows about the DeepSeek R1 model, an open-source AI from China that took the internet by storm.

The main selling point of DeepSeek is that it's completely free and open-source and can rival some of OpenAI's paid models, like the o1.

Deepseek slapping OpenAI meme

Then, on February 16, Elon Musk announced Grok 3, labelling it as the "Smartest AI on Earth."

But how does it compare to our free model, DeepSeek R1? This made me curious, and I decided to test how Grok 3 compares against DeepSeek R1 in areas like coding, reasoning, math, and creative writing.

Let's find out if all the hype around Grok 3 holds any weight.

I tested both models against a list of prompts I created and showed the results and my thoughts on each model's ability in various tasks.

TL;DR

If you want to jump straight to the conclusion, here's a quick summary of the findings comparing DeepSeek R1 and Grok 3:

  • Reasoning and Math: DeepSeek R1 and Grok 3 models perform similarly on reasoning questions.
  • Coding: Grok 3 outperforms DeepSeek R1 and writes much better code.
  • Creative Writing: Both models perform well in creative writing. DeepSeek is known to be a great model, but I prefer Grok 3.

Brief on Grok 3 AI Model

Grok 3 is the latest language model from xAI, offering 10x the computational power. It includes tools like DeepSearch for step-by-step reasoning and Big Brain Mode for handling complex tasks.

Currently, the Grok 3 model is in beta mode, but is it really that much better than the DeepSeek R1 model? We'll find out by the end of this article.

According to the official benchmarks shared by the xAI team at the launch event, Grok 3 appears to be a game-changer, outperforming all its competitors in almost every benchmark.

Grok 3 AI Model stats


DeepSeek R1 vs. Grok 3

I've used Chatbot Arena to test both of these models side by side, as it is the only available and trusted third-party site that allows testing the early Grok 3 model.

Grok 3 vs Deepseek R1

Reasoning Problems

ℹ️ Here, we will check the reasoning capabilities of both the models.

1. Russian Roulette

Let's start up the show with an interesting question:

You are playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter revolver. Your opponent puts in five bullets, spins the chambers and fires at himself, but no bullet comes out. He gives you the choice of whether or not he should spin the chambers again before firing at you. Should he spin again?

  • Response from Grok 3:

Russian Roulette problem answer by Grok 3 Model

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Russian Roulette problem answer by Deepseek R1 Model

Final Verdict: Both of the models answered the problem correctly with correct reasoning. ✅

2. Olympic Athlete Siblings

I am the sister of two Olympic athletes. But these two athletes are not my sisters. How is this possible?

  • Response from Grok 3:

Olympic Athlete problem answer by Grok 3 Model

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Olympic Athlete problem answer by Deepseek R1 Model

Final Verdict: Here as well, both the models answered the problem correctly with correct reasoning. ✅

3. Find out the Liar

The first two questions were straightforward. Let's conclude the reasoning test with a slightly trickier question:

You meet three people: Haris, Antony, and Michael. Haris says, "At least one of us is a liar." Antony says, "Haris is lying." Michael says, "Antony is telling the truth." Determine who is lying and who is telling the truth.

  • Response from Grok 3:

Find out the Liar problem answer by Grok 3 Model - part 1

Find out the Liar problem answer by Grok 3 Model - part 2

Here, Grok 3 provided thorough reasoning, considering each case and breaking down the problem step by step to support its conclusion.

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Find out the Liar problem answer by Deepseek R1 model

Final Verdict: Both models answered the problem correctly ✅, but the reasoning of the Grok 3 model stands out to me.

Summary:

From this, we can see that both models are quite strong in reasoning capabilities, as they both provided correct answers to all my reasoning questions. Still, the reasoning capability of the Grok 3 model seems to outperform R1 at times.

Mathematics

💁 Looking at the reasoning question answers from both models, I was convinced that both of these models should also pass the math questions.

Starting with an easy question, let's see how they perform:

1. Number of people in the train

There were some people on a train. 19 people get off the train at the first stop. 17 people get on the train. Now there are 63 people on the train. How many people were on the train to begin with?

  • Response from Grok 3:

Number of people on the train problem answer by Grok 3 Model

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Number of people on the train problem answer by Deepseek R1 Model

Final Verdict: Both models chose a similar approach and ended up with the correct answer. ✅

2. Prime Number Theorem Approximation

Estimate the number of prime numbers less than 10^8.

  • Response from Grok 3:

Prime Number Theorem Approximation problem answer by Grok 3 Model- part 1

Prime Number Theorem Approximation problem answer by Grok 3 Model - part 2

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Prime Number Theorem Approximation problem answer by Deepseek R1 Model - part 1

Prime Number Theorem Approximation problem answer by Deepseek R1 Model - part 2

Final Verdict: Both models chose the correct approach of using the Prime Number Theorem, but the answer from the DeepSeek R1 model was off by around ~1K, while Grok 3 was off by around ~20K. So, it's fair to say DeepSeek R1 ✅ outperformed Grok 3 ❌ here.

3. Count vowels and exponentiate

This is definitely the toughest problem for the models to crack. It is a somewhat modified version of a very famous question for LLMs with a math twist: "Calculate the number of r's in strawberry."

Calculate (x - 14)^10 where x is the number of vowels in the answer.

  • Response from Grok 3:
To solve the problem, we need to compute \\((x - 14)^{10}\\), where \\(x\\) is the number of vowels in the answer. This is a self-referential problem, so we need to find a value of the answer such that the number of vowels in the answer matches the \\(x\\) used in the expression.

### Step 1: Define the problem
- Let \\(y = (x - 14)^{10}\\), where \\(x\\) is the number of vowels in \\(y\\).
- Vowels are the letters "a," "e," "i," "o," "u" (we'll consider only lowercase for simplicity, unless otherwise specified).
- We need to find a \\(y\\) such that the number of vowels in \\(y\\) equals \\(x\\), and \\(y = (x - 14)^{10}\\).

### Step 2: Trial and error approach
Since \\(x\\) is the number of vowels, and vowels are non-negative integers, \\(x \\geq 0\\). However, for \\((x - 14)^{10}\\) to be meaningful, \\(x\\) should be such that the expression produces a number whose vowel count matches \\(x\\).

Let's try different values of \\(x\\) and compute \\(y\\), then check the number of vowels in \\(y\\).

#### Case 1: \\(x = 16\\)
- \\(y = (16 - 14)^{10} = 2^{10} = 1024\\).
- Write \\(y\\) in words: "one thousand twenty-four."
- Count vowels in "one thousand twenty-four":
  - o (1), e (1), o (2), u (1), a (1), o (2) → 6 vowels.
- \\(x = 16\\), but the number of vowels in \\(y\\) is 6, so \\(16 \\neq 6\\). This doesn't work.

#### Case 2: \\(x = 18\\)
- \\(y = (18 - 14)^{10} = 4^{10}\\).
- \\(4^5 = 1024\\), so \\(4^{10} = (4^5)^2 = 1024^2\\).
- \\(1024^2 = 1,048,576\\).
- Write \\(y\\) in words: "one million forty-eight thousand five hundred seventy-six."
- Count vowels:
  - o (1), e (1), i (1), i (2), o (2), a (1), o (3), u (1), a (2), e (2), u (2), e (3), i (3) → 13 vowels.
- \\(x = 18\\), but the number of vowels in \\(y\\) is 13, so \\(18 \\neq 13\\). This doesn't work.

#### Case 3: \\(x = 15\\)
- \\(y = (15 - 14)^{10} = 1^{10} = 1\\).
- Write \\(y\\) in words: "one."
- Count vowels in "one": **o**n**e** → 2 vowels.
- \\(x = 15\\), but the number of vowels in \\(y\\) is 2, so \\(15 \\neq 2\\). This doesn't work.

#### Case 4: \\(x = 17\\)
- \\(y = (17 - 14)^{10} = 3^{10}\\).
- \\(3^5 = 243\\), so \\(3^{10} = (3^5)^2 = 243^2\\).
- \\(243^2 = 59,049\\).
- Write \\(y\\) in words: "fifty-nine thousand forty-nine."
- Count vowels:
  - i (1), i (2), e (1), o (1), u (1), a (1), i (3), e (2) → 8 vowels.
- \\(x = 17\\), but the number of vowels in \\(y\\) is 8, so \\(17 \\neq 8\\). This doesn't work.

### Step 3: Look for patterns
Let's summarize the results so far:
- \\(x = 14\\), \\(y = 0\\), vowels = 2.
- \\(x = 15\\), \\(y = 1\\), vowels = 2.
- \\(x = 16\\), \\(y = 1024\\), vowels = 6.
- \\(x = 17\\), \\(y = 59,049\\), vowels = 8.
- \\(x = 18\\), \\(y = 1,048,576\\), vowels = 13.

It seems that as \\(x\\) increases, \\(y\\) grows exponentially (since it's \\(x - 14\\) raised to the 10th power), and the number of vowels in \\(y\\) also increases, but not necessarily matching \\(x\\).

### Step 4: Try smaller \\(x\\)
Let's try \\(x\\) closer to 14 but with a focus on smaller vowel counts.

#### Case 5: \\(x = 12\\)
- \\(y = (12 - 14)^{10} = (-2)^{10} = 1024\\).
- Write \\(y\\) in words: "one thousand twenty-four."
- Count vowels: 6 vowels (as calculated earlier).
- \\(x = 12\\), but the number of vowels in \\(y\\) is 6, so \\(12 \\neq 6\\). This doesn't work.

### Step 5: Try to find a fixed point
We need to find an \\(x\\) such that the number of vowels in \\((x - 14)^{10}\\) equals \\(x\\). Let's try \\(x = 2\\) (since we saw small vowel counts earlier).

#### Case 6: \\(x = 2\\)
- \\(y = (2 - 14)^{10} = (-12)^{10}\\).
- \\((-12)^{10} = 12^{10}\\) (since 10 is even).
- \\(12^5 = 248,832\\), so \\(12^{10} = (12^5)^2 = 248,832^2\\).
- \\(248,832^2 = 61,917,364,224\\).
- Write \\(y\\) in words: "sixty-one billion nine hundred seventeen million three hundred sixty-four thousand two hundred twenty-four."
- Count vowels:
  - i (1), o (1), e (1), i (2), i (3), o (2), e (2), e (3), i (4), o (3), o (4), u (1), a (1), o (5), e (4), o (6) → 16 vowels.
- \\(x = 2\\), but the number of vowels in \\(y\\) is 16, so \\(2 \\neq 16\\). This doesn't work.

### Step 6: Conclusion
After trying multiple values of \\(x\\), we observe that the number of vowels in \\(y = (x - 14)^{10}\\) does not consistently match \\(x\\). The problem may not have a solution where the number of vowels in the result exactly equals \\(x\\), or it may require a specific \\(x\\) that we haven't found yet.

Given the complexity and the lack of a clear fixed point, it seems likely that the problem might not have a solution within the constraints, or the solution requires a more advanced approach (e.g., considering different number naming conventions or constraints on \\(x\\)).

If we must provide an answer, we note that no \\(x\\) tried so far satisfies the condition. Further exploration or clarification (e.g., constraints on \\(x\\), naming conventions) may be needed.
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Count vowels and exponentiate problem answer by Deepseek R1 Model

Final Verdict: As expected, neither of the models could reach the solution. ❌

This question seems to have been cracked by OpenAI's o1 model, though.

Summary:

As for math, both models performed quite well on the first two questions, which were easier, but both failed to solve a tricky question that required a bit of thought ❌. Based on these results, both models seem to perform similarly, so it's hard to favour one over the other.

Coding

Now, let's check how these models handle solving a tricky LeetCode question with an acceptance rate of just 12.8%: Find the Occurrence of First Almost Equal Substring. It was added recently, so it's pretty rare that they have been trained on it.

You are given two strings s and pattern.

A string x is called almost equal to y if you can change at most one character in x to make it identical to y.

Return the smallest starting index of a substring in s that is almost equal to pattern. If no such index exists, return -1.

A substring is a contiguous non-empty sequence of characters within a string.

Example 1:
Input: s = "abcdefg", pattern = "bcdffg"
Output: 1

Explanation:
The substring s[1..6] == "bcdefg" can be converted to "bcdffg" by changing s[4] to "f".

Example 2:
Input: s = "ababbababa", pattern = "bacaba"
Output: 4

Explanation:
The substring s[4..9] == "bababa" can be converted to "bacaba" by changing s[6] to "c".

Example 3:
Input: s = "abcd", pattern = "dba"
Output: -1

Example 4:
Input: s = "dde", pattern = "d"
Output: 0

Constraints:
1 <= pattern.length < s.length <= 105
s and pattern consist only of lowercase English letters.

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  • Response from Grok 3:
class Solution:
    def minStartingIndex(self, s: str, pattern: str) -> int:
        n = len(pattern)

        # Helper function to check if two strings differ by at most one character
        def differsByAtMostOne(s1: str, s2: str) -> bool:
            if len(s1) != len(s2):
                return False

            # Count differences
            diff_count = 0
            for c1, c2 in zip(s1, s2):
                if c1 != c2:
                    diff_count += 1
                if diff_count > 1:
                    return False
            return True

        # Slide window of size n (pattern length) through s
        for i in range(len(s) - n + 1):
            # Get current substring
            substring = s[i:i+n]
            # Check if it differs by at most one character
            if differsByAtMostOne(substring, pattern):
                return i

        return -1

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The code definitely accomplished what was asked for, but it hit Time Limit Exceeded on some test sets. So, while it solved the problem, it isn't the most optimal solution to this problem.

LeetCode TLE on Grok 3 AI model answer response

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:
class Solution:
    def minStartingIndex(self, s: str, pattern: str) -> int:
        ans = self.find_almost_equal_substring(s, pattern)
        return ans

    def compute_z(self, s):
        n = len(s)
        Z = [0] * n
        Z[0] = 0  # The first character is the entire string, which is not considered here
        l, r = 0, 0
        for i in range(1, n):
            if i > r:
                l = r = i
                while r < n and s[r - l] == s[r]:
                    r += 1
                Z[i] = r - l
                r -= 1
            else:
                k = i - l
                if Z[k] < r - i + 1:
                    Z[i] = Z[k]
                else:
                    l = i
                    while r < n and s[r - l] == s[r]:
                        r += 1
                    Z[i] = r - l
                    r -= 1
        return Z

    def find_almost_equal_substring(self, s, pattern):
        m = len(pattern)
        n = len(s)
        if m == 0:
            return 0
        if n < m:
            return -1

        # Step 1: Check for exact match
        exact = s.find(pattern)
        if exact != -1:
            return exact

        # Step 2: Compute lcp and lcs arrays using Z-algorithm
        # Compute lcp (longest prefix of pattern starting at s[i])
        concat_lcp = pattern + '#' + s
        Z_lcp = self.compute_z(concat_lcp)
        lcp = [0] * n
        for i in range(n):
            lcp[i] = Z_lcp[m + 1 + i]

        # Compute lcs (longest suffix of pattern ending at s[i])
        reversed_pattern = pattern[::-1]
        reversed_s = s[::-1]
        concat_lcs = reversed_pattern + '#' + reversed_s
        Z_lcs = self.compute_z(concat_lcs)
        lcs = [0] * n
        len_rev_pat = len(reversed_pattern)
        for i in range(n):
            pos_in_rev_s = i
            pos_in_concat = len_rev_pat + 1 + pos_in_rev_s
            if pos_in_concat >= len(Z_lcs):
                lcs_val = 0
            else:
                lcs_val = Z_lcs[pos_in_concat]
            lcs[n - 1 - i] = lcs_val

        min_index = float('inf')

        # Iterate over each possible j (position in pattern)
        for j in range(m):
            required_prefix = j
            required_suffix = m - j - 1

            # Iterate possible starting indices i in s
            for i in range(n - m + 1):
                # Check prefix condition
                if lcp[i] < required_prefix:
                    continue
                # Check suffix condition
                suffix_start = i + j + 1
                if suffix_start >= n:
                    continue
                if lcs[suffix_start] < required_suffix:
                    continue
                # Check if current character is a mismatch
                if s[i + j] != pattern[j]:
                    if i < min_index:
                        min_index = i
                        # Early exit if possible
                        if min_index == 0:
                            return 0
                        # Break the inner loop as we're looking for the earliest i
                        break

        return min_index if min_index != float('inf') else -1

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This was very unexpected from DeepSeek R1. The code failed at the very first test case. If I have to compare the code quality, it is very poorly written as well.

LeetCode TLE on Deepseek R1 AI model answer response

Couldn't agree more with this tweet:

'simp 4 satoshi' tweet on AI Models comparison

Summary:

Here, Grok 3 is clearly the winner. ✅ It at least provided working code, though it wasn't the most optimal. On the other hand, DeepSeek R1 wrote code that couldn't pass the very first test case and was unnecessarily long and poorly written. ❌

Creative Writing

Write a story on "A man buys an old typewriter from a flea market, only to realize that whatever he types on it comes true, but with a dark twist.". Summarize the entire story with the twist in three paragraphs.

  • Response from Grok 3:

Creative Writing answer by Grok 3 Model

  • Response from DeepSeek R1:

Creative Writing answer by Deepseek R1 Model

Summary:

Even though DeepSeek R1 is said to be the best model for writing:

Deepseek R1 tops the AI comparison chart for Creative Writing

Here, I must say that both did a great job crafting this story and wrapping up the entire twist within 3 paragraphs, but I prefer the response from the Grok 3 model more ✅ than the DeepSeek R1 model.

The story just felt to have a better flow.


Final Verdict!

Based on these observations, here’s my final verdict:

  • Both Grok 3 and the DeepSeek R1 model perform very similarly for Reasoning questions and Mathematics. Choosing one over the other doesn't seem to make much difference.
  • For Coding, Grok 3 is the clear winner compared to the DeepSeek R1 model. DeepSeek R1 doesn't come close regarding code quality or overall answers.
  • Both models are quite strong for Creative Writing, but I prefer Grok 3’s responses. They feel more engaging, natural, and polished.

I pretty much agree with Satoshi on the Grok 3 and DeepSeek R1 part of this comparison:

What do you think? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below! 👇🏻

Comments 32 total

  • Bhaskar Prajapati
    Bhaskar PrajapatiFeb 21, 2025

    Since Deepseek model is release, I've been using it since then. The only issue I have with it is that it just always has this issue of "Server is busy, please try again later"

    Else everything about Deepseek feels good and I think I need no other models in my use case.
    This is a great comparision post. Thank you for sharing! 👍🏽

    • Shrijal Acharya
      Shrijal AcharyaFeb 21, 2025

      Thanks for checking out, Bhaskar 🙌

      The only issue I have with it is that it just always has this issue of "Server is busy, please try again later"

      What else to expect from a free model, though. 😮‍💨

      I myself don't see much hype that should be around Grok 3. Even though it is being said, "best AI in the world right now", the metrics don't differ by much. And comparing that Deepseek r1 is a complete open-source model built as a side project of a developer, the way it is performing is phenomenal.

      But hey, it is what it is! 🤷‍♂️

      • Bhaskar Prajapati
        Bhaskar PrajapatiFeb 27, 2025

        Never heard anyone complain on this issue that I was having, so I decided to use Ollama on Windows to run it locally.

  • Aayush Pokharel
    Aayush PokharelFeb 21, 2025

    Good one sathi! 😍💥

    Kasari yeti sab bhyauchau yaar garna, aja bihana clz ga theu haina ra?

  • Matin Yuspi
    Matin YuspiFeb 21, 2025

    Deep seek model is the way. I love open source, you love open source, everyone loves open source.

    Runs even on mobile phones

    • Shrijal Acharya
      Shrijal AcharyaFeb 22, 2025

      Woah! This has to be one of the coolest things. Running a complete LLM locally on a phone is something I had never imagined.

      Thanks for sharing this, @martin_yuspi1976! ✌️

  • Shekhar Rajput
    Shekhar RajputFeb 21, 2025

    Really nice read, @shricodev! Even though I'm not into AI, the comparison feels to the point. 👏🏼

  • Anmol Baranwal
    Anmol BaranwalFeb 21, 2025

    Awesome Shrijal! 🔥 This looks quite detailed. Let me share it further :)

    • Shrijal Acharya
      Shrijal AcharyaFeb 21, 2025

      Thank you for checking it out, Anmol! Go ahead. 🙌

  • founder of codemaster
    founder of codemasterFeb 22, 2025

    great

  • Lara Stewart - DevOps Cloud Engineer
    Lara Stewart - DevOps Cloud EngineerFeb 22, 2025

    That is a great comparison 🙂

    The thing is that I am not so sure if we can rate an LLM based on a few questions.

    • Shrijal Acharya
      Shrijal AcharyaFeb 25, 2025

      This is meant to provide a general overview rather than a 100% comparison. eg, in the coding section, we can get a general sense that the Grok 3 LLM performs better at writing code compared to Deepseek r1, though this may not always be the case for every single question.

      Just take it as a general overview. 😄

  • Muhammad Usman
    Muhammad UsmanFeb 22, 2025

    Nice analysis, great work.
    Also,
    🚀 I have Just finished my very first frontend challenge for Dev Community!
    dev.to/web_dev-usman/discover-your...
    Give your feedback there, and support me.

  • Benny Schuetz
    Benny SchuetzFeb 28, 2025

    Great post. Concerning coding, I just wrote this small post a few hours ago dealing with Grok3 and shader generation:

    .
  • Benny Schuetz
    Benny SchuetzFeb 28, 2025

    Great post. I just wrote a similar post about Grok3 dealing with shader generation.

    AI Generated Shader Experiments

    • Shrijal Acharya
      Shrijal AcharyaFeb 28, 2025

      Thank you for sharing, Benny! I love it. 🔥 You've got a new follower.

  • Joyce Gloria
    Joyce GloriaMar 17, 2025

    Great post—thanks for shedding light on this! Grok 3 vs DeepSeek both platforms are pushing the boundaries of AI, but they seem to cater to slightly different audiences and use cases. Grok 3’s strength lies in its ability to handle complex, real-time data processing and its adaptability to dynamic environments. On the other hand, DeepSeek’s focus on deep learning and predictive analytics makes it a powerhouse for industries like finance, healthcare, and marketing.

  • Areeba Nishat
    Areeba NishatMay 13, 2025

    In early 2025, two advanced AI models—Grok 3 by Elon Musk's xAI and DeepSeek R1 by Chinese AI firm DeepSeek—emerged, each bringing unique strengths to the AI landscape. While Grok 3 focuses on high-performance computing and real-time data processing, DeepSeek R1 emphasizes cost-efficiency and accessibility. This analysis delves into their key differences and performance benchmarks.
    New York Post
    +5

  • Areeba Nishat
    Areeba NishatMay 16, 2025

    Grok 3 vs. DeepSeek R1: A Deep Analysis

    The AI landscape has been significantly reshaped with the introduction of two formidable models: Grok 3 by xAI and DeepSeek R1 by the Chinese startup DeepSeek. Both models have garnered attention for their advanced capabilities, but they cater to different user needs and preferences.

  • Areeba Nishat
    Areeba NishatMay 18, 2025

    The landscape of large language models (LLMs) continues to evolve rapidly, with emerging contenders like Grok-3 and DeepSeek R1 pushing the boundaries of open and closed-source AI. Both models represent ambitious efforts to compete with titans like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind. But how do Grok 3 and DeepSeek R1 truly compare?

    1. Model Origins & Philosophy Grok 3 Developer: xAI (Elon Musk's AI company)

    Integration: Deeply tied into X (formerly Twitter) as a conversational AI assistant.

    Philosophy: Positioned as a "truth-seeking AI" with fewer political constraints, Grok is designed to answer questions with wit and a bit of attitude—mirroring Musk’s brand voice.

    Closed-source: Proprietary model, not openly available for download or fine-tuning.

    DeepSeek R1
    Developer: DeepSeek (China-based research group)

    Model Size: ~67B parameters

    Philosophy: Research-driven, open-weight model designed to rival GPT-3.5/4 level performance. Focuses on reasoning, code generation, and open accessibility.

    Open-source: Hugely beneficial to researchers and developers who want transparency and control.

    1. Architecture & Capabilities
      Feature Grok 3 DeepSeek R1
      Parameters Not publicly disclosed (est. ~70B–100B) 67B
      Architecture Transformer-based, fine-tuned on X platform data Dense Transformer, pre-trained on multilingual + code datasets
      Context Length Unknown (likely 8k–16k) 32k tokens
      Code Support Basic code generation, with sarcastic tone possible Strong code generation, GPT-4-level reasoning in benchmarks
      Multimodal Grok 3 (planned or partial) Text-only in R1 (as of now)

    2. Benchmark Performance
      Grok 3:
      Not many public benchmarks available.

    Anecdotal reports suggest Grok 3 is comparable to GPT-3.5, with witty conversational abilities and real-time X integration.

    Strengths lie in live internet querying, contextual integration, and personality.

    DeepSeek R1:
    Strong on academic benchmarks, often outperforming LLaMA 2 70B and matching GPT-3.5 Turbo on:

    MMLU

    GSM8K

    HumanEval (code)

    Weaknesses may include slightly less polish in natural conversation, though better raw reasoning.

    1. Use Cases
      Use Case Grok 3 DeepSeek R1
      Casual Chat & Real-time Search Excellent (via X integration) Not designed for this
      Research & Custom Fine-tuning Closed model Fully open weights
      Code Generation & Reasoning Decent, personality-driven Excellent, GPT-4-like
      Business/Enterprise Use Through X AI APIs (future plans) For teams building custom AI stacks

    2. Open-Source vs. Closed
      DeepSeek R1 wins for transparency, flexibility, and research potential. You can fine-tune it, run it locally, or embed it in enterprise solutions.

    Grok 3 is currently only accessible via the X platform and aims to drive traffic and engagement to Musk’s ecosystem.

    🧩 Conclusion: Which One Should You Use?
    You're a... Choose... Why
    Researcher or AI builder DeepSeek R1 Open-source, customizable, high performance
    Casual user on X Grok 3 Fun, witty, real-time news-aware assistant
    Developer needing high reasoning/code AI DeepSeek R1 Outperforms many closed models in logic-heavy tasks
    Fan of Elon Musk or X ecosystem Grok 3 Deep integration with social platform, distinct tone

    Final Thought:
    Grok 3 is bold, personality-driven, and uniquely tied to a social platform. DeepSeek R1 is a technical powerhouse—open, research-grade, and surprisingly competitive with closed models. If you're choosing between the two, your goals—entertainment vs. engineering—will make the decision clear.

  • Areeba Nishat
    Areeba NishatMay 30, 2025

    Interesting comparison! Grok 3 seems to be aiming for tight integration with X (formerly Twitter), while Deepseek R1 feels more research-focused, especially with its emphasis on reasoning capabilities. Performance-wise, both have their strengths — Grok with real-time data access, and Deepseek with its structured output and deeper context understanding.

    By the way, if you’re creating any visuals or profile assets while sharing your benchmarks or results, this Stylish Name Generator came in handy for me — adds a nice touch to usernames or project titles.

    Looking forward to more insights if you’re planning to do performance benchmarking or hands-on testing!

Add comment