Aside from what squidbeak already said, I have to say the quality varies a lot, and goes above the "good" threshold enough times that using these models is worth the time and effort. Compared to something like GPT-5.4 to GPT-5.6 Codex models, they cost 50-100x less (fifty to one hundred TIMES less), and can do most annoying or well-specified tasks just as well.

The main difference is that deepseek is bad at prose, and Codex models are much more eager to use tools provided to them (which is usually fine, they often make like 3 todos via tool calls for a simple one step task which is silly though), and deepseek in general benefits from good instructions more than GPT models maybe do.

Deepseek becomes much better if you give it tools for asking clarifying questions, doing self-review with subagents, and so on. The more tools it uses, the better the signal-to-noise ratio in its context, and the more consistent the output.

You must still review 100% of the code as if it's trying to sell you insurance.

An experienced software engineer (read his profile) praises the value he's found in Deepseek, and gives some real data showing how affordable that value is.

Then you, dakolli - out of generosity and minute-to-minute devotion to enlightenment - sacrifice time from your busy day to sit down (though perhaps that's been painful lately?) or stand up with your phone - and offer a profound, deeply thought-out counterpoint in the following form (and I'll paraphrase):

"Nah mate, it's shit. All LLMs are shit."

For doing what?