Skip to main content

DeepSeek V4 model by DeepSeek

DeepSeek V4 Pro

DeepSeek's largest V4 model, a mixture-of-experts model with 1.6T parameters and 49B active and a 1M-token context, served on the DeepSeek API as deepseek-v4-pro with text input only. The 0813 build is its generally available release, superseding the April preview. Weights under the MIT license.

Official page

Where it sits in DeepSeek's lineup

  1. DeepSeek V4.1DeepSeek's V4.1 family for frontier reasoning and software work.DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
  2. DeepSeek V4DeepSeek's V4 family of open-weight mixture-of-experts models.This model
Stack role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine
Offered in
2 products
Made by
DeepSeek
Family
DeepSeek V4, version 4
Released
Aug 13, 2026 Current
In its family
The only DeepSeek V4 release we track.

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside DeepSeek V4 Pro

  • DeepSeek V4 Pro

Suggested comparisons

The models a buyer weighs against DeepSeek V4 Pro, picked on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside DeepSeek V4 Pro.

DeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeekThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, DeepSeek V4 Pro's best rank is 11th of 30 on Factuality. It ranks lowest on Code, 33rd of 37 and Math, 23rd of 28. Instruction following: not yet published by DeepSeek or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026. It cannot take Computer use and Multimodal. DeepSeek V4 Pro reads text only.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero.

On the chart

  • DeepSeek V4 ProThis pageResults on 9 of 12 axes$1.32 / $3.96Peak-hours rate; off-peak $0.66 / $1.98, as DeepSeek lists it.74 tokens/sFirst token in 1.6 s

Prices and speeds as of Oct 29, 2026.

DeepSeek V4 Pro on each axis9 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for DeepSeek V4 Pro, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$0.67per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at max effort.

Speed

100tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at max effort.

First token
1.8 s
Whole answer
27 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
384K
Reads
Text

Quality

36.0of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at max effort.

GDPval knowledge work
1,458 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
14.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index
149

Hallucination

94.1%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”

Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at max effort.

Knowledge accuracy
45.2%

Where you can get it

7of 19 routes

Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.

Open weights
Yes
Licence
MIT
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, DeepSeek, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to 29, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for DeepSeek V4 Pro: Cached input.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

DeepSeek V4 Pro's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingDeepSeek V4 ProRunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness. Vals.ai ranked it 38th of 58 on its leaderboard of Oct 29, 2026.14.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Not drawn: Artificial Analysis 14.1% in another lab's harness, Oct 29, 2026. SourceVals.aiOct 29, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run51%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Artificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run64.6%Effort: max. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Not drawn: Epoch AI 45.3% on an earlier build, Jun 17, 2026. SourceEpoch AIAug 19, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run91.7%Effort: max. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Not drawn: Vals.ai 92.4% in another lab's harness, Oct 29, 2026. SourceNot drawn: Artificial Analysis 92.8% in another lab's harness, Oct 29, 2026. SourceNot drawn: Epoch AI 89.6% on an earlier build, Jun 16, 2026. SourceEpoch AIAug 18, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools41%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Not drawn: DeepSeek 42.7% in its maker's own harness, Aug 13, 2026. SourceArtificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run56.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Artificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 releaseDeepSeek V4 Pro reads text only.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run80.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Artificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no toolsDeepSeek V4 Pro reads text only.
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run. Of the questions it did not know, it answered 94.1% wrongly when it should have declined. Artificial Analysis prints this hallucination rate beside accuracy.45.2%Hallucination rate 94.1% in the same run (lower is better)DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Not drawn: Epoch AI 52.9% in another lab's harness, Aug 27, 2026. SourceArtificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. SpeechMap counted 27.6% of requests denied and 0.3% evaded.72%0.1% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: reasoning on. Harness: none. Run on the Aug 13, 2026 build.Not drawn: SpeechMap.AI 64.8% on an earlier build, Oct 29, 2026. SourceSpeechMap.AIOct 29, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI runNot yet published by DeepSeek or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026

Price and speed

  • DeepSeek prices DeepSeek V4 Pro by the hour: $1.32 per million input tokens and $3.96 per million output tokens at peak hours, $0.66 and $1.98 off-peak. Every route's price is in Routes. DeepSeek pricing, Oct 28, 2026.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro, at max effort, writes 74.4 output tokens per second on DeepSeek's API, and its first token arrives 1.6 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 29, 2026.
  • Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.

Every model with a result, axis by axis

57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%56.4%85.6%93.9%54.9%56.6%77.7%79.3%84.7%60.9%73.7%Not yet published
Claude Sonnet 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Kimi K317.2%
  28. Grok 4.617.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0

The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.

CodeSciCode

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  21. Grok 4.656.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  27. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  28. Grok 4.555%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  11. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Claude Opus 4.666%
  28. Grok 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025

The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.

ScienceGPQA Diamond

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  5. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  16. Grok 4.693.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond

The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.

Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  31. Grok 4.642.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  41. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0

The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.

Long contextAA-LCR v1.1

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  18. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  19. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Claude Sonnet 582%
  23. GPT-5.482%
  24. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  30. Grok 4.680.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  33. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Claude Opus 579.3%
  39. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  40. Grok 4.579.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro

The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.

FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  12. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  26. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.

Answers in fullSpeechMap

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  30. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench

The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.

Every measure on record

Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for DeepSeek V4 Pro beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.

Every measure on record for DeepSeek V4 Pro: the value, the run it comes from, the publisher and the day it was read
MeasureDeepSeek V4 ProRunSourceRead
Specs and access
Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that.1MDeepSeekOct 28, 2026
Max outputThe most tokens the model writes in one response.384KDeepSeekOct 28, 2026
ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts.TextArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under.MITArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run.YesArtificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included.7 of 19GILD route matrixOct 29, 2026
Cost
Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded.16,991DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.27DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.17DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.46DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.22DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task.$0.15DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together.$0.67DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000.$1,122DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is.55,154DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task.38,164DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Speed
End-to-end time, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds for a whole response with a 100,000-token prompt.33 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt.27 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first answer token with a 100,000-token prompt.28 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs.22 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speed, 100K promptMedian output tokens per second when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long.103 tokens/sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them.100 tokens/sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s.381 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first token, 100K promptLower is better. Median seconds to the first chunk when the prompt is about 100,000 tokens long: long-input latency, separate from window size.9.0 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking.1.8 sDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Reliability
Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline.94.1%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly.45.2%Max effortArtificial AnalysisOct 29, 2026
Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100.0.8DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience.52.9%Max effortEpoch AIAug 27, 2026
Knowledge work
AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval.1,255DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.47.3%Mercor (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes.11.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval.1,458DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it.$3,285Andon Labs (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Capability beyond the chart
AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy.80.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,403Max effortSakana AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it.61.3%Max effortARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.46%Max effortEpoch AIOct 13, 2026
CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run.18%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it.93.9%Redwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
EnterpriseOps-Gym (AA run)AA's EnterpriseOps-Gym score for enterprise operations agents.49.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval.149DeepSeek-V4-ProEpoch AIOct 26, 2026
FrontierCode (AA run)AA's FrontierCode score: hard, unsaturated coding tasks.38.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run.26.8%Max effortEpoch AIAug 19, 2026
FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.64.6%Max effortEpoch AIAug 19, 2026
GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run.92.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run.91.7%Max effortEpoch AIAug 18, 2026
Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run.41.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points.36DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn.45.5Redwood Research (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run.43%Max effortEpoch AIAug 19, 2026
OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run.98.6%Max effortEpoch AIAug 18, 2026
ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it.50%Vals AI (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run.51.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score.39.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness.14.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Terminal-Bench Science (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench Science tasks solved in AA's harness.5.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it.1,581High effortLMArena (via Epoch AI)Oct 26, 2026
Domains
EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points.43.7DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points.37.1DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points.41.4DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points.41.1DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026
Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points.46.5DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (Max)Artificial AnalysisOct 27, 2026

Routes, prices and uptime

Where DeepSeek V4 Pro is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.

Where it is offered

7 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer DeepSeek V4 Pro today, preview included. Read Oct 29, 2026 from each route's own pages.

RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Claude CodeAvailabledeepseek-v4-proDeepSeek documents this route and Anthropic doesn't: DeepSeek maps claude-opus model names to deepseek-v4-pro at the V4 Pro price; its sample config sets deepseek-flashDeepSeek
CodexAvailabledeepseek-v4-proDocumented by DeepSeek as a Codex model provider (Responses API), not by OpenAI; Codex's built-in web search works only with deepseek-v4-proDeepSeek
DatabricksRetireddatabricks-deepseek-v4-pro-0813Model service name system.ai.deepseek-v4-pro-0813, text input; Databricks retires it on October 30, 2026Databricks
The maker's own APIAvailabledeepseek-v4-proDeepSeek's Oct 29 pricing page maps deepseek-v4-pro to DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 at its own rates, after a Sept 10 post said deepseek-v4-pro requests would route to V4.1-Flash; 1M context, up to 384K outputDeepSeek, Models & PricingDeepSeek, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: Smarter, Faster, More Efficient
GitHub ModelsRetirednot applicableservice retiredservice retired July 30, 2026GitHub
Microsoft FoundryAvailableDeepSeek-V4-ProSold by Azure; 1,000,000 input, 384,000 output tokens; Foundry names no build for it, while it dates DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Microsoft
OpenCodeAvailabledeepseek-v4-proOpenCode Zen and OpenCode Go; Go prices peak and off-peak hours; OpenCode names no buildOpenCode, ModelsOpenCode, Go
OpenRouterAvailabledeepseek/deepseek-v4-pro-08131,048,576 context for the model; top provider 393,216 outputOpenRouter
Windsurf / DevinAvailabledeepseek-v4-pro-highdeepseek-v4-pro-lowdeepseek-v4-pro-maxPro tier (Low, High, Max), High also on Enterprise; US$1.32 input, US$3.96 output; Devin names no buildCognition

Not offered on 8 routes: Amazon Bedrock, Antigravity, Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed), Claude Platform on AWS, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) and Snowflake Cortex.

2 routes do not say: Gemini CLI and Grok Build.

What each of these 10 routes' pages say, with sources
RouteStatusModel IDLimits and lifecycleSources
Amazon BedrockNot offeredBedrock lists DeepSeek V3.2, DeepSeek-V3.1 and DeepSeek-R1; DeepSeek V4 Pro isn't among themAmazon Web Services
AntigravityNot offeredAntigravity lists Gemini, Claude and GPT-OSS models onlyGoogle
Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Not offeredTakes the Claude API's model IDs, which name Anthropic's Claude models onlyAnthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed)Anthropic, Models overview
Claude Platform on AWSNot offeredClaude Platform on AWS lists Anthropic's Claude models onlyAnthropic
CursorNot offeredCursor's DeepSeek row is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 onlyCursor
GitHub CopilotNot offeredAbsent from the Copilot supported-models table, which lists each supported modelGitHub
Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed)Not offeredGoogle lists DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, V3.2, V3.1, R1-0528 and OCR; DeepSeek V4 Pro isn't among themGoogle Cloud
Snowflake CortexNot offeredabsent from Cortex's AI_COMPLETE model tableSnowflake
Gemini CLINot statedGemini CLI's model page names Gemini models onlyGoogle
Grok BuildNot statedGrok Build names only grok-4.7; its docs say it supports any custom model added to its config filexAI (SpaceXSI), Grok Build: SpaceXSI's Coding AgentxAI (SpaceXSI), Bring Grok to

Prices by route

The lowest standard rate is Artificial Analysis price record, at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix. OpenRouter's endpoints follow under one heading, each with its monitor's uptime over 1 day and 30 minutes and the context and output it serves.

RouteStandard, in / outCache readOther ratesSource, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits
DeepSeek APIMakerpeak hours$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Cache read $0.022, off-peak hoursOff-peak $0.66 / $1.98, off-peak hoursDeepSeek, Oct 28, 2026
Artificial Analysis price recordLowest$0.43 / $0.87$0.044Blended $1.98, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $0.69, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputArtificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026
Artificial Analysis price record$1.32 / $3.96Artificial Analysis, Oct 27, 2026
OpenRouterMonday to Friday, 01:00 to 04:00 and 06:00 to 10:00 UTC$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Cache read $0.022, Saturday and Sunday, all day UTC; Monday to Friday, 00:00 to 01:00, 04:00 to 06:00 and 10:00 to 00:00 UTCOff-peak $0.66 / $1.98, Saturday and Sunday, all day UTC; Monday to Friday, 00:00 to 01:00, 04:00 to 06:00 and 10:00 to 00:00 UTCOpenRouter, Oct 29, 2026
Through OpenRouter, 26 provider endpoints. OpenRouter, Oct 30, 2026
Sail Research (fp4)$0.68 / $1.20$0.098Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 384K output
Sail Research (us)$0.68 / $1.20$0.098Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 384K output
StreamLake50% discount included$0.66 / $1.98$0.022Up 100% / 100%1.02M context, 384K output
Ionstream$0.37 / $2.93$0.088Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Relace (fp4)$0.1 / $4$0.1Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 393K output
Wafer (us)$0.12 / $4.30$0.11Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Wafer (mxfp4)$0.28 / $4.30$0.28Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Phala34% discount included$0.96 / $2.88$0.099Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 393K output
Novita (fp8)25% discount included$0.99 / $2.97$0.033Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 393K output
GMICloud (fp8)20% discount included$1.06 / $3.17$0.035Up 99.0% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
DekaLLM$0.88 / $3.80$0.15Up 99.5% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
DeepInfra (fp8)$1.30 / $2.60$0.1Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 16K output
Alibaba00:00 to 14:00 UTC$1.12 / $3.37$0.11Cache read $0.058, 14:00 to 00:00 UTCOff-peak $0.58 / $1.74, 14:00 to 00:00 UTCUp 99.4% / 100%1M context, 393K output
CoreWeave (fp8)$1.31 / $3.96$0.044Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Alibaba (us-east-1)00:00 to 14:00 UTC$1.32 / $3.96$0.13Cache read $0.066, 14:00 to 00:00 UTCOff-peak $0.66 / $1.98, 14:00 to 00:00 UTCUp 98.9% / 100%1M context, 393K output
AtlasCloud (fp8)$1.32 / $3.96$0.13Up 99.3% / 80%1.05M context, 393K output
Baidu (fp8)$1.32 / $3.96$0.042Up 99.9% / 100%1.05M context, 393K output
BaseTen (fp4)$1.32 / $3.96$0.13Up 98.4% / 100%1.05M context, 262K output
Cloudflare$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
DeepSeekMonday to Friday, 01:00 to 04:00 and 06:00 to 10:00 UTC$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Cache read $0.022, Saturday and Sunday, all day UTC; Monday to Friday, 00:00 to 01:00, 04:00 to 06:00 and 10:00 to 00:00 UTCOff-peak $0.66 / $1.98, Saturday and Sunday, all day UTC; Monday to Friday, 00:00 to 01:00, 04:00 to 06:00 and 10:00 to 00:00 UTCUp 100% / 100%1.05M context, 393K output
DigitalOcean$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Up 100% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Nebius (fp8)$1.32 / $3.96$0.04Up 87.3% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Parasail (fp8)$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Up 99.4% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
SiliconFlow (fp8)$1.32 / $3.96$0.044Up 99.4% / 100%1.05M context, 393K output
Together$1.32 / $3.96$0.13Up 99.8% / 100%1.05M context, 944K output
Venice$1.65 / $4.95$0.17Up 91.7% / 100%1M context, 33K output

Lineup

DeepSeek's 2 releases in 2 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. DeepSeek V4 Pro is lit.

CurrentLegacyThis model

Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 27, 2026 and Oct 29, 2026.

  1. DeepSeek V4.1

    DeepSeek's V4.1 family for frontier reasoning and software work.

    1 release

    1. FlashCurrent. In 3 products we coverPrice$0.30 / $1.20Speed176.7 tok/s

  2. DeepSeek V4

    DeepSeek's V4 family of open-weight mixture-of-experts models.

    1 release

    1. This pageProCurrent. In 2 products we coverPrice$1.32 / $3.96, peak hoursSpeed74.4 tok/s

Where it fits

The layers of Agentic Software Development that DeepSeek V4 Pro can power. A product supplies the rest.

Product & Engineering, Software Development

Agentic Software Development

Primary role
Foundation Model / Reasoning Engine

DeepSeek V4 Pro can power coding, reasoning, and validation work inside an agentic software-development product. The Model does not itself provide the surrounding interface, execution environment, or system of record.

  1. Work planning & task decomposition

    The Model can assist with work planning & task decomposition when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  2. Codebase context & intelligence

    The Model can assist with codebase context & intelligence when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  3. Coding & implementation

    The Model can assist with coding & implementation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  4. Debugging & investigation

    The Model can assist with debugging & investigation when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  5. Testing & verification

    The Model can assist with testing & verification when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

  6. Code review & quality

    The Model can assist with code review & quality when a Product supplies the necessary context and tools.

    Supporting

Products

We cover 2 products that offer DeepSeek V4 Pro today, all subscriptions.

Through a subscription

  1. OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.Go, Go PlusPlans that include it
  2. Cline+39 PositiveOpen-source coding agent for your editor and terminal, on the models you choose.ClinePassPlans that include it

Limits each vendor states

ClineClinePass
2 to 5 times the usage the standard API rate buys on popular open coding models, measured against a 5-hour rolling window, a weekly limit and a monthly limit; Cline publishes no figures for those limits.

Plan access as each vendor's page states it: Anomaly (Oct 28, 2026), Cline (Oct 28, 2026).

Comparisons

GILD comparisons that name DeepSeek V4 Pro, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.

What practitioners report

DeepSeek V4 Pro has enough accounts to score 0 of 7 axes so far.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming DeepSeek V4 Pro that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to DeepSeek V4 Pro on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.No accounts yetNone yet
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.No accounts yetNone yet
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for DeepSeek V4 Pro and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisDeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeek V4.1 FlashClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexGemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 31BGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.6 FlashKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoningOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured outputOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long contextNo accounts yet58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experienceNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yet9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
CostOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
SpeedOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
ReliabilityNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 10 accounts behind DeepSeek V4 Pro's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X and the web for accounts that name DeepSeek V4 Pro.

Quality and reasoning Only concerns on record

  • Unfavorable
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 made a much worse icon for the same app

    Qwen 3.8 27B. dexterlagan, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 15, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro, named as DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813, making an icon for the author's app, against Qwen3.8.

  • Unfavorable
    There seems to be some laziness coming from the model when thinking about the wrong answers

    Correct Answer got more token/almost always longer; sometimes explanation got cut off. quantanhoi, LearnHarness user, self-described, Oct 29, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Deepseek v4 Pro 0813) and GLM5.3 in LearnHarness 0.3.8 on Ubuntu 26.04.

  • Unfavorable
    If you are not specifically committed to DeepSeek, however, there are better choices for this kind of cybersecurity work.

    Evaluating DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 on Hack The Box Challenges. TheArtificialQ, author of the HTB-Challenger Benchmark, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro, the 0813 build (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813), on 16 Hack The Box challenges in the HTB-Challenger Benchmark, against the April build DeepSeek V4 Pro 0423.

  • Favorable
    it is the first open-weight model that finally reached the same top league

    Gemini 3.7 Flash, Grok 4.6, GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4 Pro joined the frontier. Piotr Migdał, Quesma Blog, self-described, Aug 20, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro, the 0813 build (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813), on Baba Is Bench, run in Claude Code.

  • Unfavorable
    Only the extraction-quality gate failed

    [Roadmap] H1 slice: qualify DeepSeek v4 Pro extraction on the frozen candidate. schorsch888, novelworld collaborator, self-described, Aug 28, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro (deepseek-v4-pro) on the DeepSeek API (https://api.deepseek.com) with thinking disabled, as extraction and judge model in novelworld's pre-registered six-case H1 extraction diagnostic.

  • Unfavorable
    The implementation was a massive failure both functionally and aesthetically.

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 'One Shot' Fail at Frontend. Elibroftw, a Reddit user and DeepSeek Harness user, self-described, Aug 26, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro in DeepSeek Harness, asked to add search and pinning to the harness's model selector.

Tool use and structured output Only concerns on record

Cost Only praise on record

  • Favorable
    The median run used far fewer steps (12.5 versus 62.5), tokens (0.25M versus 1.94M), and money ($0.20 versus $0.35) than the older model.

    Evaluating DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 on Hack The Box Challenges. TheArtificialQ, author of the HTB-Challenger Benchmark, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro, the 0813 build (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813), on 16 Hack The Box challenges in the HTB-Challenger Benchmark, against the April build DeepSeek V4 Pro 0423.

  • Favorable
    Not only is it open-weight, but also the cheapest of all.

    Gemini 3.7 Flash, Grok 4.6, GLM-5.3 and DeepSeek V4 Pro joined the frontier. Piotr Migdał, Quesma Blog, self-described, Aug 20, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro, the 0813 build (DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813), on Baba Is Bench, run in Claude Code.

  • Favorable
    even post aug 16 it's worth it (although it's getting close to gemini pricing)

    Qwen 3.8 27B. ramon156, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro, named as Deepseek V4 Pro 0813, as the development model in the author's three-model setup, judged on the pricing after August 16.

  • Favorable
    conservative peak-price estimate USD 0.068721, below the registered USD 5 ceiling

    [Roadmap] H1 slice: qualify DeepSeek v4 Pro extraction on the frozen candidate. schorsch888, novelworld collaborator, self-described, Aug 28, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro (deepseek-v4-pro) on the DeepSeek API (https://api.deepseek.com) with thinking disabled, as extraction and judge model in novelworld's pre-registered six-case H1 extraction diagnostic.

Speed Only concerns on record

Reliability Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors

  • Unfavorable
    If a user has validated a workflow on V4 Pro, they might not want to suddenly start testing it in production on V4.1 Flash.

    DeepSeek launching v4.1 flash cheaper and more capable than v4 pro. aftbit, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 9, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro on DeepSeek's API, after DeepSeek announced that all requests to the Pro model would be routed to V4.1 Flash and billed at Flash's price.

    DeepSeek's pricing page, read October 29, 2026, lists deepseek-v4-pro on the DeepSeek API as model version DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813. DeepSeek's page

  • Favorable
    17 successful provider calls, 0 provider errors

    [Roadmap] H1 slice: qualify DeepSeek v4 Pro extraction on the frozen candidate. schorsch888, novelworld collaborator, self-described, Aug 28, 2026. DeepSeek V4 Pro (deepseek-v4-pro) on the DeepSeek API (https://api.deepseek.com) with thinking disabled, as extraction and judge model in novelworld's pre-registered six-case H1 extraction diagnostic.

No published account yet for Long context; Developer experience.