Compare AI models
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.22 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $0.66 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.007 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.0048OpenInference | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.0519OpenInference | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 82.7% | 73% |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 39% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 54% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 79.8% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | — | 27.7% |
DeepSWE 1.0Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. Higher is better. | — | 18% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 70.3% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 73.2% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 76.7% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 34.8% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 61.4% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 25.1% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1071 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Jul 31 2026 | May 18 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsClaude Haiku 5.5Composer 2.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGPT-6.1 SolComposer 2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGemini 4 ArgonComposer 2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMuse Spark 1.3Composer 2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMistral Large 4Composer 2.5vsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsKimi K3Composer 2.5vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads Composer 2.5 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Only DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 has a verified first-party API price: $0.22 per million input tokens and $0.66 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Composer 2.5. Composer 2.5 shipped 74 days before DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 is open weight, while Composer 2.5 is closed.
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 leads at 82.7% vs Composer 2.5 at 73%.