Celeris-1 vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) scores 5.1 points higher (11.4 vs 6.3) but costs 7.7× as much to run the benchmark ($461 vs $60.0; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 11.4 | +81.0% DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is 81.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $460.74 | +668.0% DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is 7.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 20.20s | +2221.8% DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is 2221.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $2.00 / $4.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs Celeris-1: 81.0% more intelligence, 668.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 2221.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Celeris-1DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/deepseek-r1-0120 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/deepseek-r1-0120?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill