DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Verdict
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 61.9.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is stronger in coding, knowledge, long context, multimodal.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, reasoning, instruction following, maths.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is 2.1× cheaper ($0.262 vs $0.544 per 1M blended).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) streams 2.7× faster (215 vs 81 tokens per second).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 61.9 | 64.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 59.6 | 70.2 |
| Coding score | 68.9 | 58.8 |
| Composite score | 74.5 | 75.0 |
| Knowledge score | 61.7 | 58.1 |
| Long context score | 68.5 | 66.6 |
| Multimodal score | 61.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | 69.5 | 70.9 |
| Instruction following score | – | 74.3 |
| Maths score | – | 53.7 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.262 | $0.544 |
| Output speed | 215 tok/s | 81 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 10.5 s | 55.6 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 89.7% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | – | 45.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | – | 2.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 96.7% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 77.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 47.0% |
| SciCode | – | 50.0% |
| WeirdML | – | 48.9% |
| ProofBench | – | 16.0% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1614 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 4.9 | – |
| LiveBench | 81.1% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 86.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 80.0% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 77.3% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 93.3% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.3% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 81.2% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 70.0% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | 39.5 | 36.3 |
| IFBench | – | 76.5% |
| AA-LCR | 84.0% | 80.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | 77.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | -5.3 | 0.8 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 46.2% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 92.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.3% | 41.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.9% | 51.0% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 96.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 87.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 87.3% |
| LegalBench | – | 80.3% |
| CorpFin | – | 61.4% |
| TaxEval | – | 72.1% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 77.4% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 89.4% |
| Vals Index | – | 42.9 |
| AIME 2026 | – | 96.7% |
| HMMT February 2026 | – | 93.9% |
| MathArena Apex | – | 28.1% |
| CritPt | 14.3% | 18.0% |
| GDPval (AA) | 56.6% | 49.7% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | – | 39.6% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | – | 38.3% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 18.8% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 24.3% |
| CaseLaw v2 | – | 59.4% |
| Code Migration | – | 26.2% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 51.6% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 44.1% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 3.8% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 23.1% |
| MedCode | – | 40.5% |
| MedScribe | – | 75.1% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.0% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 62.9% |
| SkillsBench | – | 51.3% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | – | 49.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | – | 20.0% |
| LMCA | – | 41.2% |
| DTBench | – | 90.7% |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro: questions
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than DeepSeek V4 Pro?
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 61.9. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than DeepSeek V4 Pro for coding?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in coding (69 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than DeepSeek V4 Pro for agentic tasks?
- DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in agentic tasks (70 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.262 against $0.544 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash streams faster: 215 against 81 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.