DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsKimi K2.6
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | Kimi K2.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 1T |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 256k |
| 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. | $0.66 | $0.95 |
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. | $1.98 | $4.00 |
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. | $0.022 | $0.16 |
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. | $0.96Ionstream | $0.516Inceptron |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $2.60DeepInfra | $2.40DigitalOcean |
| 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. | 35% | 65% |
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. | 80.6% | 80.2% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.4% | 83.2% |
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. | 60% | 34.7% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | — | 52% |
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. | — | 89.6% |
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. | 87.9% | — |
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. | 74.1% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 83.3% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 42.7% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 90.5% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 73.1% |
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. | 31.8% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Moonshot AI |
| Release date | Aug 13 2026 | Apr 21 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsClaude Fable 5.1Kimi K2.6vsClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsGPT-6 AstraKimi K2.6vsGPT-6 AstraDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsGemini 3.8 FlashKimi K2.6vsGemini 3.8 FlashDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.6vsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsGrok 4.6Kimi K2.6vsGrok 4.6DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsMistral Medium 3.5Kimi K2.6vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads Kimi K2.6 on 3 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (BullshitBench v2, SWE-Bench Verified, BrowseComp, Humanity's Last Exam). DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.66 vs $0.95 per million input tokens, and $1.98 vs $4.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Kimi K2.6 shipped 114 days before DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 is proprietary, while Kimi K2.6 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Kimi K2.6 leads at 65% vs DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 at 35%. On SWE-Bench Verified, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 80.6% vs Kimi K2.6 at 80.2%. On BrowseComp, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 83.4% vs Kimi K2.6 at 83.2%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 60% vs Kimi K2.6 at 34.7%.