MModelspectraIndependent AI Model Intelligence
Head-to-head · Updated 2026-09-08
Model Comparison · Head to Head

DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Muse Spark 1.1

DeepSeek-V4-Pro wins on Overall, Coding, Multimodal. Every numeric field is compared below, with a worked monthly-cost example and a pick rule for each use case.

VendorDeepSeek / Meta
Data fields15+ dimensions
Updated2026-09-08
Read~9 min
01

Verdict at a glance

Bottom line: Choose DeepSeek-V4-Pro when coding depth, long-context reliability matter most; choose Muse Spark 1.1 when lower cost is the priority.

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 Muse Spark 1.1 if you…

  • Completely free open weights
  • By Meta
  • Self-hostable
  • Multimodal
  • Best for: Open research, Local deployment, Experimental
02

Head-to-head aggregate scores

Scores are 0–100, aggregated from public benchmark information and independently weighted across three leaderboards. Rank is out of 22 tracked models.

DeepSeek-V4-Pro Higher overall
DeepSeek · #8 overall
Overall77
Coding79
Multimodal77
VS
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta · #22 overall
Overall61
Coding59
Multimodal75

Aggregated from public sources and independently weighted; methodology on the Terms page. Scores within 3 points are treated as statistically tied.

03

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.

DimensionDeepSeek-V4-ProMuse Spark 1.1Verdict
VendorDeepSeek (CN)Meta (US)Different vendors
Released2026.042026.08Muse Spark 1.1 is newer
Overall (rank)77 · #861 · #22DeepSeek-V4-Pro +16
Coding79 · #559 · #21DeepSeek-V4-Pro +20
Multimodal77 · #1375 · #15DeepSeek-V4-Pro +2
Context window1M256KDeepSeek-V4-Pro larger
Max output128K64KMuse Spark 1.1 longer
Effective-context9480DeepSeek-V4-Pro more reliable
Input $/1M$0.44FreeMuse Spark 1.1 cheaper
Output $/1M$1.32FreeMuse Spark 1.1 cheaper
Cache discountnonenoneTie
Speed~70 tok/sHardware-dependentDeepSeek-V4-Pro faster
TTFT0.5sHardware-dependentDeepSeek-V4-Pro snappier
Function calling8265DeepSeek-V4-Pro ahead
Refusal rate~5%~4%Muse Spark 1.1 less restrictive
English8278DeepSeek-V4-Pro
Chinese8560DeepSeek-V4-Pro
Modalitiestexttext, imagedifferent coverage
Open weightsYesYesBoth open
Fine-tuningYesYes
Free tierDeepSeek App free; new API users receive creditsFully free (model weights)
SOC2 / no-trainno / yesno / yes
Private deploymentYesYesBoth support it

Fields drawn from vendor public documentation and the Modelspectra 22-model dataset; speed varies with network, concurrency and prompt length. Verify current pricing before purchase.

04

Dimension-by-dimension analysis

Reasoning & overall intelligence

DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads the overall aggregate by 16 points (77 vs 61). That is a meaningful, not marginal, edge on hard, multi-step reasoning, while Muse Spark 1.1 remains a strong generalist that is not out of its depth on routine work.

Agentic coding

This is a decisive gap: DeepSeek-V4-Pro scores 79 against 59. On multi-file edits, SWE-style tickets and long-horizon agent loops DeepSeek-V4-Pro needs fewer correction turns; Muse Spark 1.1 is still competent for scripts and assisted completion but trails as task complexity rises.

Multimodal

DeepSeek-V4-Pro leads multimodal 77 vs 75. A concrete modality difference: Muse Spark 1.1 additionally handles image. Neither emits native video, so the comparison is about parsing images and documents, not generation.

Speed & latency

Muse Spark 1.1 is self-hosted, so its speed depends on your hardware; against a managed API like DeepSeek-V4-Pro (~70 tok/s, 0.5s TTFT) compare on your own infrastructure before assuming latency.

Context: window vs usable recall

Nominal windows are 1M for DeepSeek-V4-Pro and 256K for Muse Spark 1.1. Effective-context scores point the same way as window size — DeepSeek-V4-Pro is ahead on usable recall (94 vs 80), so prefer it for long-document work where details cannot be missed.

Price & total cost

Muse Spark 1.1 is free open weights (you pay only for the infrastructure you run it on), while DeepSeek-V4-Pro is a paid API at $0.44/$1.32 per 1M tokens. The real comparison is total cost of ownership — GPU/ops against a managed bill — not list price alone.

Chinese vs English

English: DeepSeek-V4-Pro 82 vs Muse Spark 1.1 78. Chinese: 85 vs 60. For Chinese-language production, DeepSeek-V4-Pro 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 Muse Spark 1.1 65, so DeepSeek-V4-Pro has the edge on structured tool use. Fine-tuning is available from DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Muse Spark 1.1. Factor in existing SDK/plugin familiarity — switching cost often outweighs a few-point tool-use gap.

05

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.

Cost note: one of these models is free open weights, so a per-token monthly bill does not apply — budget instead for GPU and operations. The paid API counterpart works out to roughly $84/month at list for this workload.

Illustrative model; your input/output mix and cache-hit ratio change the result. Prices are list rates before any enterprise agreement.

06

Decision tree

IF the workload is agentic or multi-file coding and a wrong first pass is expensive  →  choose DeepSeek-V4-Pro (coding 79 vs 59).
IF you serve real-time users and latency is a product KPI  →  choose DeepSeek-V4-Pro (~70 tok/s, 0.5s TTFT).
IF you need free, self-hostable weights and can run your own GPU/ops  →  choose Muse Spark 1.1 (free open weights).
IF long-document recall has to be near-perfect  →  choose DeepSeek-V4-Pro (effective context 94 vs 80).
07

Frequently asked questions

Which is better for agentic coding?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro is decisively stronger for coding (79 vs 59 on the aggregate). The gap shows on SWE-style multi-file tasks and long agent loops that need fewer correction turns; Muse Spark 1.1 is fine for routine scripts.
Does the bigger context window actually matter?
Nominal windows are DeepSeek-V4-Pro (1M) and Muse Spark 1.1 (256K), but usable recall follows the effective-context score (94 vs 80). Prefer the higher effective-context model for long-document work where nothing can be missed.
How do they differ for Chinese-language and data-residency use?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro is the Chinese model (Chinese score 85, domestic cloud, possible private deployment) while Muse Spark 1.1 is the global model (Chinese 60, overseas API). Pick by language quality, access path and where data must reside.
Which handles multimodal inputs better?
Multimodal scores are 77 (DeepSeek-V4-Pro) vs 75 (Muse Spark 1.1), with modality coverage text versus text/image. Match the model to the input types your product actually receives.
What is the single-line recommendation?
Choose DeepSeek-V4-Pro for Coding, Math reasoning; choose Muse Spark 1.1 for Open research, Local deployment.
How quickly do these rankings change?
Modelspectra refreshes the aggregate as new public benchmarks and prices appear. Treat scores within 3 points as a tie and re-check before a committed purchase.