DeepSeek-V3.1 Terminus

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V3.1 Terminus is the stabilized V3.1 release for hybrid inference. It follows DeepSeek-V3.1 and precedes the experimental DeepSeek-V3.2 Exp. The mixture-of-experts checkpoint has 671 billion total parameters and 37 billion active parameters.
The model card documents a native context configuration beyond 128,000 tokens. The released FP8 configuration also documents an issue in the o_proj path.
| Specification | Value and source |
|---|---|
| Weights | Open weightsSource |
| Access | API, LocalSource |
| Parameters | 671BSource |
| Active parameters | 37BSource |
| Context window | 163,840 tokensSource |
| License | MITSource |
| Parameters | 671 BSource |
| Active parameters | 37 BSource |
| Rounded context label | 128kSource |
| Model configuration context | 163,840 tokens (Native checkpoint context; distinct from the rounded model-card label and provider serving limits.)Source |
| Architecture | MoE hybrid reasoning modelSource |
| Reasoning mode | reasoning modeSource |
| Tool calling | YesSource |
| Quantization | FP8; known o_proj issue in released FP8 artifactSource |
Benchmark meta-analysis
These Gradually indexes place selected published measurements on a 0 to 100 scale. They are not accuracy percentages and do not guarantee results in your application.
Not enough independent results for a score yet
provisional
Method version: benchmark-meta-score-v3
The index includes active measurements from reviewed primary sources when at least five models are compared in the same documented comparison slice across dataset, harness, agent, tools, and trial count. Each benchmark series and evaluator contributes one shared setup slice from the newest capture. When one source and series include several explicitly documented reasoning tiers, the highest documented tier (none through max) is selected, never the best result value. The explicit source label “Non-reasoning” is treated as none. Unknown or ambiguous tiers exclude the model from that series. Within each series, percentages and rates are logit-transformed, other units stay unchanged, and all values are then standardized. A one-factor model then estimates one shared strength per model and, per series, how sharply it separates the models. Area scores move away from that strength only as far as the model's own results in the area support. The overall score weights the core areas at 75% and finance, law and health at 25%. It requires at least eight test series from two sources and three areas. The 0 to 100 scale refers to a fixed reference group of 29 language models whose average sits at 50.
Published model-specific parameters can differ. This is not a controlled experiment; comparisons with such differences are marked provisional.
Unmeasured series are not entered as zero. Where a model has no own results in a core area, its overall strength stands in, and the note “estimated without own results in …” names the area. Fewer test series lead to a larger standard error.
The 95% interval follows from the standard error of 200 recalculations with randomly redrawn test families. It describes how precisely the recorded test series determine the value. It is no prediction for future tasks or for later recalculations with other participants.
The source count is not a count of independent experiments.
OECD handbook on composite indicatorsAll 0 test families and 0 of 0 raw measurements are listed here. The complete calculation for every model is available in the JSON export.
Each evaluator measures different capabilities under its own conditions. Test series, composite indices and their components stay separate. The detailed results below retain their scales, configurations and source dates.
| Evaluator | Test series | Composite indices | Recorded active measurements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis | 2 | 1 | 9 |
Coverage is not a quality ranking. Overlapping tests and multiple settings do not count as independent experiments. Vendor claims, historical and disputed results are excluded from this overview and remain labelled in the detailed evidence.
Page 1 of 2
These measurements have no matching peer values under the same test conditions. Their original values and sources remain available here.
Page 1 of 2
One SVG prompt and fixed output settings. Captures are shown only with 0 reported reasoning tokens or documented lack of reasoning controls. Identical test conditions do not make the models' internal compute identical.

A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.
DeepSeek-V3.1 Terminus
API request failed
Reasoning (requested): high
Not yet visually reviewed. A successful recording does not confirm correct physics or full compliance with the prompt.
Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Task origin (Simon Willison)38.8 / 100
DeepSeek calls V3.1-Terminus an update and publishes its results directly beside DeepSeek-V3.1.
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus model card (2026-09-09)DeepSeek says V3.2-Exp builds upon V3.1-Terminus.
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp announcement (2026-09-09)