DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGrok 4.5
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | Grok 4.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $2.00 |
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 | $6.00 |
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 | $0.30 |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 38% | 54% |
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% | 83.3% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | — | 13.4% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 54.2% |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | — | 60.8% |
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. | — | 64.7% |
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. | — | 78% |
CursorBench v3.2Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | — | 66.7% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic 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. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 54% |
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. | — | 62% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Extended) · extended splitAgentic coding — frontier-difficulty agentic coding tasks (v1.1, extended split) | — | 56.6% |
APEX-SWEExpert software engineering — expert-level software-engineering tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 53.6% |
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. | — | 83% |
Frontier-Bench v0.1Agentic computer work — A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | — | 17.8% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 15.7% |
APEX-AgentsExpert agentic work — expert-level agentic work tasks (AI Productivity Index) | — | 47.1% |
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% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 76.7% | — |
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% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 12.92% |
MedScribeMedical admin work — Can the AI support doctors with their administrative work, like notes and paperwork? Created by Vals AI. Higher is better. | — | 86.88% |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | — | 56 |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1526 |
AA-BriefcaseKnowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo) | — | 1313 |
Arena Elo (Text)Community preference — Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | — | 1468 |
Arena Elo (Code)Community preference (code) — Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | — | 1555 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | SpaceXAI |
| Release date | Jul 31 2026 | Jul 8 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Frequently asked questions
Grok 4.5 leads DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, Terminal-Bench 2.1). DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.22 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $0.66 vs $6.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Grok 4.5 shipped 23 days before DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On BullshitBench v2, Grok 4.5 leads at 54% vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 at 38%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Grok 4.5 leads at 83.3% vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 at 82.7%.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 was released by DeepSeek on Jul 31 2026.
Grok 4.5 was released by SpaceXAI on Jul 8 2026.
Grok 4.5 leads on Terminal-Bench 2.1 — DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 82.7% vs Grok 4.5 83.3%.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.22 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $0.66 vs $6.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsClaude Opus 5Grok 4.5vsClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGPT-5.6-CyberGrok 4.5vsGPT-5.6-CyberDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGemini 3.7 FlashGrok 4.5vsGemini 3.7 FlashDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMuse GlimmerGrok 4.5vsMuse GlimmerDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.5vsMistral Medium 3.5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsKimi K3Grok 4.5vsKimi K3