All comparisons
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs. the closest competing models
Pricing
| Metric Type | DeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek · via OpenRouter | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek · via OpenRouter | Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle · via OpenRouter | GLM 5.3 FlashZ.AI · via OpenRouter | GPT-5.6 TerraOpenAI · via OpenRouter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Related comparisons
- GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra vs Kimi K3 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 flash 0731GLM 5.3 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Terra vs Gemini 3.7 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs. its predecessors and closest competitorsGemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3 vs GPT-5.6 Terra vs Kimi K3 vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Gemini 3.7 Flash vs. the closest competing modelsGemini 3.7 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 5 vs GPT-5.6 Terra vs Muse Spark 1.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
- How far 27B goes – Qwen3.8 vs. the leading modelsQwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs GPT-5.6 Luna vs MiniMax M3 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- Kimi K3 vs the latest frontier modelsGPT-5.6 Sol vs Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Terra
- New GPT‑5.6 family is here GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-5.6 Luna vs GPT-5.5GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-5.6 Terra vs GPT-5.6 Luna vs GPT-5.5
Sources
Model makers/Providers:DeepSeek ·Google ·Z.AI ·OpenAI ·OpenRouter