Compare / Nova Micro 1.0 vs DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
Nova Micro 1.0 vs DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
16 results from 3 sources that measured both models. Each row is in the source's own units; there is no overall winner.
| Benchmark | Metric | Nova Micro 1.0 | DeepSeek V3.2 Exp |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,233 | 1,422 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,197 | 1,409 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,244 | 1,449 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,215 | 1,416 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,241 | 1,425 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,223 | 1,410 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Irrelevance detection% correct | 70.7% | 93.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Memory% correct | 2.4% | 54.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Multi-turn tasks% correct | 1.4% | 44.9% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Overall accuracy% correct | 22.3% | 56.7% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Relevance detection% correct | 81.2% | 93.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (curated)% correct | 74.1% | 85.5% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (user-contributed)% correct | 66.3% | 76.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Web search% correct | 1.5% | 69.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Answer rate% of documents | 100.0% | 96.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Hallucination rate% of summaries | 5.5% | 5.3% |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.