Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 284B | — |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 1M | 400k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.05 |
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. | — | $0.40 |
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. | — | $0.005 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.04OpenInference | $0.025OpenAI |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.136OpenInference | $0.20OpenAI |
| $14.80OpenInference · fp4 | $30.00OpenAI list price | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 18% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | 91.6% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 88.1% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | OpenAI |
| Release date | Apr 24 2026 | Aug 7 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5 nanovsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek-V4-FlashvsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5 nanovsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek-V4-FlashvsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5 nanovsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek-V4-FlashvsGrok 4.7GPT-5 nanovsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4-FlashvsMistral Large 4GPT-5 nanovsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4-FlashvsKimi K3GPT-5 nanovsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Flash and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5 nano has a verified first-party API price: $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek-V4-Flash. GPT-5 nano shipped 260 days before DeepSeek-V4-Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (DeepSeek-V4-Flash) vs 400k (GPT-5 nano). DeepSeek-V4-Flash is open weight, while GPT-5 nano is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek-V4-Flash and GPT-5 nano don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.