Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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 | 1M |
| 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. | — | $0.30 |
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. | — | $2.50 |
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. | — | $0.03 |
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. | $0.05Relace | $0.15Google |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.2352DeepInfra | $1.25Google |
| $34.30DeepInfra · fp8 | $185Google 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. | — | 66% |
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. | — | 54.2% |
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. | 77% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | 68.2% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 42.3% | — |
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. | — | 54% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | — | 49% |
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. | 42.6% | — |
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. | — | 74% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 35.4% | — |
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. | 60.5% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1140 |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | 83% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | |
| Release date | Oct 17 2026 | Jul 21 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark OpenDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsMistral Large 4Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsMistral Large 4DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017vsKimi K3Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite shipped 88 days before DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017) vs 1M (Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite). DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is open weight, while Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.