ChatGPT vs. DeepSeek: I've Used Both, and the Winner Is Obvious

PCMag editors select and review products independently. If you buy through affiliate links, we may earn commissions, which help support our testing.
Although DeepSeek is completely free and ChatGPT isn't, the latter's free version still has more features, such as deep research, image generation and recognition, voice chatting, and more.
ChatGPT's paid plans increase usage limits and add even more perks, such as expanded memory, Sora video generation, and a wider model selection. These tiers start at $20 per month (ChatGPT Plus) and scale up to $200 per month (ChatGPT Pro). ChatGPT Plus unlocks the vast majority of the chatbot's capabilities, however, so you likely won't feel the need to upgrade beyond that.
DeepSeek doesn't have premium chatbot plans, but it does offer affordable API access pricing. Its flagship V3 model costs $0.07 for input and $1.10 for output (per a million tokens), whereas access to OpenAI's flagship GPT-4.1 model (without any customization) goes for $2 for input and $8 for output. If API access is important to you, then DeepSeek gives you massive savings.
Winner: Tie
You can access ChatGPT and DeepSeek on the web or via mobile apps (Android and iOS). ChatGPT also has desktop apps (macOS and Windows) and an official Chrome extension. DeepSeek doesn't have either, though many unofficial extensions are available to try.
ChatGPT and DeepSeek are available elsewhere, like . Note that many of DeepSeek's (the company) offerings are available on other apps and sites, but not via the chatbot itself. Perplexity, for example, has a deep research feature that uses DeepSeek's R1 model, while Hugging Face takes advantage of DeepSeek's Janus-Pro image generation model. This is the natural result of DeepSeek's business model, but the decoupling of features can be confusing.
The interfaces for ChatGPT (first slide above) and DeepSeek (second slide) are very similar and consistent across their apps and sites. Without much to fiddle with, they're both easy to use, too. Still, ChatGPT gives you more settings to adjust, including those related to memory and personality. You also get some extra quality of life features, such as an easy way to share chats with others.
Winner: ChatGPT
ChatGPT has two primary model series: the 4-series (its conversational flagship line) and the o-series (its complex reasoning line). The latest models are o3 Pro and o4-mini. DeepSeek has the V3 model for general tasks and the R1 model () for more complicated endeavors; both are the most recent ones available. Other DeepSeek models exist, such as DeepSeek Coder V2, DeepSeek Math, and DeepSeek VL (vision learning), but these aren't accessible through the chatbot.
Outside of coding or solving a particularly challenging equation, you spend most of your time with ChatGPT's 4o model and DeepSeek's V3 model. Below, you can see how they perform across different tasks. The model you should use depends on the task at hand, but most tasks don't require complex reasoning.
Winner: Tie
Both ChatGPT and DeepSeek can search the web for information on current events, and both can do so without issue in most cases. However, ChatGPT (first slide) handles sourcing better, offering up icons that display the name of a source at a glance and in-text highlights that tie sources to specific claims in responses. DeepSeek (second slide) doesn't have highlights, and its source icons are merely footnote-style numbers.
ChatGPT also automatically includes pictures in its responses when relevant, whereas DeepSeek can't display pictures even if you ask. Finally, ChatGPT includes article tiles, complete with headlines and images, at the bottom of responses for further reading. DeepSeek provides links you can click to learn more about a topic, but doesn't present them nearly as elegantly.
Shopping is another feature of ChatGPT: If you ask for buying advice, it presents clickable product tiles with links to retailers. In testing, ChatGPT's recommendations weren't quite as good as those from , but DeepSeek doesn't have anything similar.
Winner: ChatGPT
With ChatGPT, you can generate reports that run dozens of pages long and cite upward of 50 sources on any topic imaginable for free. Its best-in-class sourcing goes a long way to elevate this function. DeepSeek can't do deep research at all, limiting you to web searches.
Winner: ChatGPT
Although ChatGPT's image generation feature isn't perfect, it routinely provides pictures with fewer errors and less distortion than competitors. ChatGPT can even handle complicated prompts, such as maintaining a narrative across comic panels. Other chatbots struggle to do the same. DeepSeek doesn't generate images. Below is an example of a ChatGPT image generation.
Winner: ChatGPT
If you sign up for ChatGPT Plus, you get access to its Sora video generation feature. Sora isn't as advanced as (which can also generate audio), but it can create lifelike videos if you spend time carefully tweaking prompts and go through enough iterations. DeepSeek can't generate videos.
Winner: ChatGPT
DeepSeek can process files, but only for text extraction. ChatGPT excels at image recognition, identifying computer components even when they were behind a glass panel with reflections. When it comes to understanding documents, DeepSeek generally performs well, as does ChatGPT. For example, neither had trouble answering questions about my motherboard and watercooling pump based on the manuals I provided, but DeepSeek did force me to upload these documents one at a time. More problematically, however, DeepSeek is far slower than ChatGPT, especially when it comes to uploading files. Both chatbots can sometimes hallucinate and make up quotes.
Winner: ChatGPT
ChatGPT and DeepSeek are both capable of generating monologues, plays, stories, and more. In testing, I prompted them with the following: 'Without referencing anything in your memory or prior responses, I want you to write me a free verse poem. Pay special attention to capitalization, enjambment, line breaks, and punctuation. Since it's free verse, I don't want a familiar meter or ABAB rhyming scheme, but I want it to have a cohesive style or underlying beat.' Both chatbots delivered acceptable results, which you can see below.
DeepSeek's poem (second slide) reads quite similarly to ChatGPT's poem (first slide), particularly its beginning. Chatbots tend to have trouble generating creative writing that feels distinct from prior generations, but different models almost always produce different results. The similarities here are especially worth noting, since OpenAI accused DeepSeek .
Winner: Tie
Both chatbots can answer questions across computer science, math, and physics topics, thanks to their complex reasoning models. However, DeepSeek gets answers wrong significantly more often than ChatGPT. DeepSeek also took considerably longer to process the images with the questions I uploaded in testing. ChatGPT can and will get things wrong occasionally, but it's more reliable overall. Regardless of which chatbot you use, make sure to double-check any answers you get.
Both chatbots can help with coding, but that's outside the scope of our coverage. However, you can still .
Winner: ChatGPT
ChatGPT offers Custom GPTs, which are customizable AI assistants. You don't get any major benefits versus just talking to ChatGPT directly, but they do enable some unique functionality with third-party services. One such example is a Custom GPT for Wolfram Alpha, which gives you access to Wolfram Alpha's computational power and math knowledge within ChatGPT. You can also set up Custom GPTs to do things outside the ChatGPT ecosystem and source information from the broader internet. DeepSeek doesn't have AI assistants.
Winner: ChatGPT
ChatGPT and DeepSeek both have context windows of up to 128,000 tokens. Usage caps are largely dynamic, changing based on server load. Anecdotally, I was able to hit usage caps on ChatGPT's free plan (but not its paid plan). I didn't manage the same with DeepSeek. However, in my testing, DeepSeek was often slower than ChatGPT and regularly failed to return responses. The latter instances felt like they could be a form of rate limiting after sustained use.
Winner: Tie
Data collection on ChatGPT and Gemini is a mixed bag. Both collect tons of user data (including the contents of all your chats) and use it to train their models by default. Both at least give you the option to opt out. Neither DeepSeek nor OpenAI is a stranger to data leaks and shady digital practices, either.
However, DeepSeek 'the CCP's latest tool for spying, stealing, and subverting US export control restrictions' and found that it funnels Americans' data to the Chinese government, manipulates its results to align with CCP propaganda, and likely stole from US AI models to create its own, among other things.
I don't recommend sharing sensitive information with any chatbot, but DeepSeek's privacy concerns go far above those I have with ChatGPT.
Winner: ChatGPT
Disclosure: Ziff Davis, PCMag's parent company, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in April 2025, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

27 minutes ago

• Yahoo

SoftBank founder proposes $1trn AI and robotics hub in US

SoftBank Group founder Masayoshi Son is pursuing a plan to establish a $1trn industrial complex in Arizona, the US, to create a major hub for AI and robotics manufacturing, reported Bloomberg. The Japanese investment firm has approached Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) to play a key role in the project, though the specifics of TSMC's potential involvement remain unclear. The proposed complex, dubbed 'Project Crystal Land,' envisions a high-tech manufacturing hub akin to China's Shenzhen, individuals familiar with the plan told the publication. The park could include production lines for AI-powered industrial robots, they said, though the discussions remain private. SoftBank has also engaged with Samsung Electronics executives to gauge interest, alongside a range of other technology companies, the report added. SoftBank officials have held discussions with US federal and state government officials, including US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, to explore potential tax incentives for companies investing in the industrial park. Son has compiled a list of SoftBank Vision Fund portfolio companies, such as robotics firm Agile Robots SE, that could establish production facilities at the site. The project's feasibility depends on support from the Trump administration and state authorities. While the envisioned cost could reach $1trn, as previously reported by the Nikkei, the actual scale will hinge on participation from major technology firms, Bloomberg's report said. If successful, Son has suggested the possibility of developing additional advanced industrial parks across the US. TSMC, which has already begun mass production at its first Arizona factory as part of a $165bn US investment, indicated that SoftBank's project does not impact its existing plans in Phoenix. Representatives from SoftBank, TSMC, and Samsung declined to comment, and the US Commerce Department did not immediately respond to Bloomberg's inquiries. In March 2025, SoftBank agreed to acquire Ampere Computing, a US-based semiconductor design company, for $6.5bn. As per the deal, Ampere Computing will be acquired by SBG through its subsidiary Silver Bands 6 (US) Corp. Ampere Computing is engaged in developing high-performance, energy-efficient processors tailored for cloud computing and AI workloads. The company currently employs approximately 1000 engineers. "SoftBank founder proposes $1trn AI and robotics hub in US" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Android Authority

33 minutes ago

• Android Authority

Can we trust Google Maps to get us anywhere anymore?

Andy Walker / Android Authority 🗣️ This is an open thread. We want to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments and vote in the poll below — your take might be featured in a future roundup. This past weekend, I was driving home from a wonderful break in the country. I usually use Google Maps to guide me home on longer drives, even if I have driven that route before. It's more of a comfort than a necessity. However, it tried its level best to take me on an unwanted adventure. To get home from the tiny town I visited, I had a choice between a faster toll route or the longer scenic mountain pass that runs alongside it. I selected the 'Avoid tolls' toggle before I left, thinking that the app would suggest I use the pass. After all, it was the best alternative available. That wasn't the case at all. Maps instead suggested two hugely divergent routes that would've taken me two hours north or 90 minutes south of the best route. Absentmindedly, I came so close to taking the suggested deviations. And if I hadn't curiously glanced at my Android Auto display, I would've ended up further from home. This incident opened my eyes to the larger problem affecting Google Maps' navigation reliability, especially on the open road. Having read countless takes online about Maps guiding drivers on obtuse routes, I'd say it's a fairly wide-reaching issue. So, if you have a story to tell, I'd love to hear it. I'm sure other readers would too. Here are the questions: Has Google Maps ever gotten you lost? If so, tell us about the experience. What's the worst place Google Maps has ever taken you? Do you feel that Maps has grown more inaccurate and less reliable over time? What is your preferred navigation app on Android, and why do you pick it? Would you pay a premium for a Google Maps that offers smarter navigation and more contextually aware features? Be sure to vote in the poll below, too! Has Google Maps ever gotten you lost while driving? 0 votes Yes. Google Maps consistently gets me lost. NaN % Yes. Once or twice, but not very often. NaN % No, Google Maps has always been a reliable guide for me. NaN % I don't use Google Maps while driving. NaN % 👇Sound off in the comments with your Google Maps adventure anecdotes and opinions.

Yahoo

35 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Adios, Adobe Acrobat. Hello, UPDF.

PDFs have long been the digital equivalent of a necessary chore: tedious, clunky, and often frustrating. But UPDF 2.0 flips the script, turning document work into something surprisingly smooth and efficient, and you don't have to pay a monthly subscription to get it. Right now, lifetime access to UPDF is just $59.99, a sharp 60 percent discount from the usual $149.99. Heads up: this deal is only for new users, and if you're eyeing UPDF's futuristic AI add-on, that's not included in the lifetime package—you'll have to grab it separately from Now for the good stuff. UPDF runs seamlessly across Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android, so whether you're on your laptop, phone, or tablet, your PDFs are always within reach. And UPDF isn't just a PDF reader; it's a powerful editor that lets you tweak text and images right inside your files. Whether for business or personal use, you can convert PDFs to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, HTML, or images—and vice versa. Need to merge, split, reorder pages, or watermark your documents? No problem. Plus, you can annotate, highlight, and password-protect your work with ease. It packs all the features you expect from Adobe Acrobat—but without the bloated subscription model. The AI features are where UPDF really gets next-level. Imagine chatting with your PDFs, automatically summarizing long reports, translating on the fly, or even creating mind maps from dense documents. Just remember, these AI powers require a separate purchase. For tech-savvy guys juggling contracts, research, or side gigs, UPDF offers serious bang for your buck. It's a clean, versatile tool with a one-time fee and lifetime updates—no recurring charges, no fuss. Simply put, it's grown-up PDF management with style and substance. Get a lifetime subscription to UPDF and edit, convert, and use AI chat with PDFs for $59.99 (reg. $149.99). StackSocial prices subject to change. _ UPDF – Edit, Convert, AI Chat with PDF: Lifetime Subscription See Deal