All comparisons

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs. the closest competing models

Pricing

Metric TypeDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813Gemini 3.8 FlashGLM 5.3 FlashGPT-5.6 Terra
Inputper 1M tokens$0.020TextImage$0.66Text$0.83TextImageVideoFileAudio$0.15TextImageVideo$2.00FileImageText
Outputper 1M tokens$1.00Text$1.98Text$4.13Text$0.50Text$12.00Text
Reasoningper 1M tokens——$4.13——
Cached inputper 1M tokens$0.015$0.022$0.083$0.030$0.20
Cache writeper 1M tokens——$0.042—$2.50
Image inputper 1M tokens——$0.83——
Audio inputper 1M tokens——$0.83——
Cached audio inputper 1M tokens——$0.083——
Web searchper request——$0.014—$0.010

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is the cost-efficient, high-throughput model tier in DeepSeek's V4 family. It's upgraded version of previous Flash generation and replaces experimental endpoints, now it have native multimodal vision capabilities and published under MIT-licensed with open weights.

V4.1-Flash is optimized for input-heavy, iterative workflows rather than pure heavyweight one-shot reasoning:

  • Optimized for multi-turn task loops, terminal use, and computer-use automation
  • Works well with persistent framework runners (such as Pi, Codex, Claude Code, mini-SWE, opencode and local developer harnesses)
  • Handles mixed media input out-of-the-box (e.g., parsing system architecture charts, screenshot-to-code pipelines, UI testing scripts, and dense tabular document scans)
  • Supports fine-grained reasoning effort levels: Off, Low, Medium, High, Max

From the model card (all instruct results at reasoning_effort=100):

  • AutomationBench & Agent's Last Exam clearest wins: 54.8 vs Opus 5 at 50.3 and GPT-5.6-Sol at 45.8; 31.8 vs Opus 5 at 28.6.
  • CyberGym 88.1, ahead of GPT-5.6-Sol and GLM-5.3 at 84.5. No Opus 5 number was reported.
  • DeepSWE v1.1 & HLE w/ tools 74.2 and 63.9, statistically tied with Opus 5 (74.0, 63.6); the card treats gaps under 0.3 as equivalent.
  • Terminal-Bench 90.6 on 2.1, the top result. On the harder 3.0 and 4.0 it scores 30.0 and 31.2, well behind Opus 5 at 43.3 and 51.8.

Where it trails: HLE without tools (36.8 vs 56.3), ProgramBench, NL2Repo-Bench, and all three visual agent benchmarks.
Scaffold sensitivity: DeepSWE v1.1 ranges 65.5–74.2 for the same weights depending on harness. Treat sub-point margins accordingly.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash model card

Related comparisons

See all comparisons

Sources

Model makers/Providers:DeepSeek ·Google ·Z.AI ·OpenAI ·OpenRouter

Pricing and benchmark data are provided for informational purposes only and are aggregated from publicly available third-party sources. Prices may not reflect the most current rates and actual costs may vary depending on your provider, plan, usage tier, billing method (e.g. on-demand, batch, or committed use), region, and other factors. Always verify information directly with the respective provider before making decisions. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any of the providers listed. All trademarks and model names are the property of their respective owners.