DeepSeek vs Kimi for Math
Kimi has a slight edge for pure math with 96.1% on AIME 2025 versus DeepSeek's 93.1%, maintaining advantages across other reasoning benchmarks like GPQA Diamond. Both models feature extended thinking for complex problems, but if math accuracy is your priority, Kimi's competitive performance justifies its marginally higher cost. DeepSeek remains the smarter choice if you value open-source accessibility and cost-efficiency alongside solid mathematical reasoning.
Head-to-Head for Math
| Criteria | DeepSeek | Kimi | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math competition performance (AIME 2025) | Strong 93.1% accuracy | Superior 96.1% accuracy | Kimi |
| Complex math reasoning (GPQA Diamond) | Solid 82.4% performance | Better 87.6% performance | Kimi |
| Extended thinking capability | Available via R1 | Built-in feature | Tie |
| Cost-effectiveness | Most affordable option | Higher output costs | DeepSeek |
| General math knowledge (MMLU Pro) | Good 85.0% score | Better 87.1% score | Kimi |
Math competition performance (AIME 2025)
DeepSeek
Strong 93.1% accuracy
Kimi
Superior 96.1% accuracy
Complex math reasoning (GPQA Diamond)
DeepSeek
Solid 82.4% performance
Kimi
Better 87.6% performance
Extended thinking capability
DeepSeek
Available via R1
Kimi
Built-in feature
Cost-effectiveness
DeepSeek
Most affordable option
Kimi
Higher output costs
General math knowledge (MMLU Pro)
DeepSeek
Good 85.0% score
Kimi
Better 87.1% score
See Them Answer a Math Question
We asked both models the same math-focused prompt.
“Solve this step-by-step: Find all integer solutions to x³ + y³ = z³ + 1 where x, y, z are positive integers less than 100, and explain the mathematical reasoning behind your approach.”
Solve this step-by-step: Find all integer solutions to x³ + y³ = z³ + 1 where x, y, z are positive integers less than 100, and explain the mathematical reasoning behind your approach.
Alright — let's solve the equation step-by-step.
We want integer solutions with to:
where are positive integers.
Step 1: Symmetry and ordering
The equation is symmetric in and , so we can assume to avoid duplicate permutations.
Also, from :
If , ⇒ ⇒ (solution).
Let’s check if any solution can have large or small.
Step 2: Rearrange
This is a cubic Diophantine equation (a special case of with one sign changed).
Known identity: but here our corresponds to above? Not neat.
Let’s just search systematically by bounding .
Step 3: Bounding
Since , maximum .
Thus ⇒ , already true.
But better: If and , then ⇒ . So is roughly but slightly less.
Also possible? Not necessarily.
Actually let's test logically:
If :
Then , ⇒ , true for . So always possible mathematically, but .
Similarly, if , then , so ⇒ possibly .
We can just search with and solve for and check exactness.
Step 4: Try small values
Let’s do small :
:
⇒ ⇒ , any with is a solution:
for are solutions.
So infinite family: for integer with .
:
⇒ ⇒ .
Differences of cubes: .
7 is prime ⇒ and .
If , :
.
⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ (positive).
Then , : Check ? works: (2,1,2) but we ordered , so not in our search. Actually we ordered so invalid. So for case, , but the only positive solution is from above ⇒ no solution with .
So no new with in our ordered list.
:
⇒ .
Factor: .
Case 1: , : ⇒ ⇒ no integer.
Case 2: , : , ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ . Again in our ordering (x=3, y=1 not counted).
Case z-y=13, other factor 2: , then impossible for positive y.
Similarly z-y=26, factor 1: impossible.
So no new in ordered.
:
⇒ .
.
Check z-y=1: ⇒ no.
z-y=3: , ? Wait other factor 63/3=21, so equation: ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ or . ⇒ z=4 ⇒ solution (4,1,4) but y<x.
z-y=7: factor 9: ⇒ 3y^2+21y+40=0 no real.
z-y=9: factor 7: 3y^2+27y+81=7 ⇒ 3y^2+27y+74=0 no.
etc. No with y ≥ 4.
Actually maybe let’s check a known sporadic solution: There’s known identity:
Check: 729 + 1000 = 1729, , yes 1729 = 1728+1.
So (9,10,12) works (and symmetric (10,9,12)). With ordering: .
Also but we want positive x.
Another known:
? Check: , , yes. So (64, 94, 103) but 103 not <100, so ignore.
Also but y,z>100.
The only small one with all <100: (9,10,12) and permutations.
Also we already have.
Step 5: Check systematically by search idea
We can limit search: , .
From known database: Positive solutions to with :
-
for .
-
Sporadic: (9,10,12), (10,9,12) but ordered gives (9,10,12).
Check (10,9,12) is same unordered triple as above.
Any others? Try known small solutions from taxicab-type: indeed.
Let’s quickly check cube differences: .
For small y: if x=2: 8+y^3-z^3=1 ⇒ y^3-z^3=-7 ⇒ z^3-y^3=7, only (y,z)=(1,2) as earlier ⇒ not ordered x≤y? x=2,y=1 no.
Similarly x=6: ⇒ ⇒ . Try z-y=5: ⇒ ⇒ y^2+5y-6=0 ⇒ y=1, z=6 ⇒ (6,1,6) not ordered.
Seems the only with x≠1 and x≤y is (9,10,12).
Check x=8: 512+y^3 = z^3+1 ⇒ z^3-y^3=511=7×73. Try z-y=7: 3y^2+21y+49=73 ⇒ 3y^2+21y-24=0 ⇒ y^2+7y-8=0 ⇒ y=1, z=8 ⇒ (8,1,8) no.
No others likely.
Step 6: Conclusion
Positive integer solutions with , ordered :
-
Family: for .
-
Sporadic: .
Total count of ordered triples (x ≤ y) from family: 99 solutions.
Plus sporadic (9,10,12).
All permutations of these satisfy original equation (if we drop ordering).
Where the second can be permuted in .
Try math tasks with both models
See DeepSeek and Kimi answer side by side in Multichat
Detailed Breakdown
Both DeepSeek and Kimi are strong contenders for mathematical work, but the benchmarks tell a clear story: Kimi holds a measurable edge across every relevant metric. On AIME 2025 — one of the most demanding math competition benchmarks available — Kimi scores 96.1% compared to DeepSeek's 93.1%. That 3-point gap may sound modest, but at this difficulty level it represents a meaningful difference in the ability to solve hard, multi-step problems. Kimi also leads on GPQA Diamond (87.6% vs 82.4%) and MMLU Pro (87.1% vs 85.0%), both of which include substantial quantitative reasoning components.
For everyday math tasks — solving equations, working through calculus problems, checking statistical analyses, or helping with homework — both models perform reliably well. DeepSeek's open-source R1 reasoning model is purpose-built for this kind of extended, chain-of-thought problem solving, and it excels at showing its work step by step. If you're a student or educator who needs detailed derivations and explanations alongside the final answer, DeepSeek R1 is a genuinely capable tool that's also free to use generously.
Where Kimi pulls ahead is in harder, more complex scenarios: competition-style problems, graduate-level proofs, multi-variable optimization, or anything requiring sustained logical precision across many steps. Its extended thinking mode and parallel sub-task coordination make it particularly good at decomposing difficult problems before solving them. For a researcher working on quantitative modeling or a developer building math-heavy applications, Kimi's higher ceiling matters.
One practical consideration: DeepSeek's API pricing is slightly cheaper (roughly $0.56 per million input tokens vs Kimi's $0.60), which may be relevant if you're running large batches of math problems programmatically. However, Kimi's output pricing is nearly double DeepSeek's ($3.00 vs $1.68 per million tokens), so for verbose, step-by-step solutions at scale, DeepSeek is the more economical choice.
Neither model supports code execution or file uploads natively, so neither can run numerical computations or process spreadsheets directly — a limitation worth noting if your workflow involves data-heavy math.
Recommendation: For most users — students, tutors, casual problem solvers — DeepSeek is more than capable and offers excellent value, especially via its free tier. But if you're tackling competition mathematics, advanced proofs, or high-stakes quantitative reasoning where accuracy is critical, Kimi's benchmark advantage is real and worth choosing for. Kimi is the stronger math model; DeepSeek is the smarter budget pick.
Frequently Asked Questions
Other Topics for DeepSeek vs Kimi
Math Comparisons for Other Models
Try math tasks with DeepSeek and Kimi
Compare in Multichat — freeJoin 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat