DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
DeepSeek-V4-Pro wins on Overall; DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash wins on Coding, Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.
Verdict at a glance
Choose DeepSeek-V4-Pro if you…
- Strongest open source
- Value champion
- Excellent math reasoning
- Extremely low price
- Best for: Coding, Math reasoning, Open-source deployment
Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash if you…
- 1M context at ~890 bytes/token global KV
- Top agentic coding (DeepSWE 74.2, Terminal-Bench 2.1 90.6)
- Persistent KV cut to ~1/8 via bounded replay
- Open weights, extremely low serving cost
- Best for: Long-context AI agents, Agentic coding, High-throughput deployment
Head-to-head aggregate scores
Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 27 tracked models.
Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.
Specs & pricing — every field side by side
List API prices in USD per 1M tokens. The highlighted cell is the stronger value/capability on that row.
| Dimension | DeepSeek-V4-Pro | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendor | DeepSeek (CN) | DeepSeek (CN) | Same vendor |
| Released | 2026.04 | 2026.09 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is newer |
| Overall (rank) | 77 · #10 | 76 · #12 | DeepSeek-V4-Pro +1 |
| Coding | 79 · #9 | 89 · #5 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash +10 |
| Multimodal | 77 · #17 | 78 · #16 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash +1 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M | Tie |
| Max output | 128K | 128K | Tie |
| Effective-context | 94 | 98 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash more reliable |
| Input $/1M | $0.44 | $0.14 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash cheaper |
| Output $/1M | $1.32 | $0.28 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash cheaper |
| Cache discount | none | none | Tie |
| Speed | ~70 tok/s | ~85 tok/s | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash faster |
| TTFT | 0.5s | 0.3s | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash snappier |
| Function calling | 82 | 84 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ahead |
| Refusal rate | ~5% | ~5% | Tie |
| English | 82 | 84 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| Chinese | 85 | 86 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| Modalities | text | text, image | different coverage |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes | Both open |
| Fine-tuning | Yes | Yes | |
| Free tier | DeepSeek App free; new API users receive credits | DeepSeek App free; open weights to self-host | |
| SOC2 / no-train | no / yes | no / yes | |
| Private deployment | Yes | Yes | Both support it |
Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 27-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.
Dimension-by-dimension analysis
Reasoning & overall intelligence
DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads the overall aggregate by 1 points (77 vs 76). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.
Agentic coding
This is a clear gap: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash scores 89 against 79. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash needs fewer correction turns; DeepSeek-V4-Pro is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.
Multimodal
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads multimodal 78 vs 77. A concrete modality difference: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash additionally handles image. Neither emits native video, so the comparison is about parsing images and documents, not generation.
Speed & latency
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is faster in interactive use: ~85 tok/s with 0.3s TTFT versus ~70 tok/s with 0.5s TTFT (about 1.2× the throughput). For conversational UIs where perceived responsiveness drives retention, that edge is a real product factor even when raw reasoning is lower.
Context: window vs usable recall
Nominal windows are 1M for DeepSeek-V4-Pro and 1M for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash. Crucially, the larger nominal window does not win on usable recall: DeepSeek-V4-Pro advertises 1M but DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash scores higher on effective-context (98 vs 94), i.e. it actually retains more of what it was given.
Price & total cost
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is the cheaper API at $0.14/$0.28 versus DeepSeek-V4-Pro at $0.44/$1.32 per 1M input/output tokens — list input is about 3.1× lower.
Chinese vs English
English: DeepSeek-V4-Pro 82 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 84. Chinese: 85 vs 86. For Chinese-language production, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is the stronger pick. Note that non-Chinese models generally require overseas network access for their APIs.
Tool use & ecosystem
Function-calling score: DeepSeek-V4-Pro 82 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 84, so DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from DeepSeek-V4-Pro and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.
Cost worked example — same workload, real token math
Assume a production workload of 100M input + 30M output tokens per month, with 90% of input tokens served from cache. Figures use public list prices.
| Scenario · per month | DeepSeek-V4-Pro | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| List priceno cache applied | $84100M in × $0.44 + 30M out × $1.32 | $22100M in × $0.14 + 30M out × $0.28 | 3.82×gap |
| With caching90% of inputs cache-hit | $84no published cache discount | $22no published cache discount | 3.82×gap |
Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.