Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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. | — | 128k |
| 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 | $0.60 |
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 | $2.20 |
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 | $0.11 |
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. | $0.1901Relace | $0.40DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.98DeepSeek | $1.75DeepInfra |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 73.8% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 83.4% | 52% |
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% | 24.8% |
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% | 42.8% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 84.9% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 41% |
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% | — |
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. | 61.3% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 85.7% |
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. | 31.8% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Z.ai |
| Release date | Aug 13 2026 | Dec 22 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsClaude Sonnet 5.5GLM-4.7vsClaude Sonnet 5.5DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-4.7vsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-4.7vsGemini 4 ArgonDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-4.7vsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsGrok 4.7GLM-4.7vsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813vsMistral Medium 3.5GLM-4.7vsMistral Medium 3.5Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads GLM-4.7 on 4 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, BrowseComp, Humanity's Last Exam). GLM-4.7 is cheaper on input: $0.60 vs $0.66 per million tokens. DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 is cheaper on output: $1.98 vs $2.20 per million tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. GLM-4.7 shipped 234 days before DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, 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 SWE-Bench Verified, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 80.6% vs GLM-4.7 at 73.8%. On BrowseComp, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 83.4% vs GLM-4.7 at 52%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 42.7% vs GLM-4.7 at 24.8%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 leads at 60% vs GLM-4.7 at 42.8%.