Back to Value Frontier

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Head-to-head API cost, context, and performance comparison. Synced at 1:40:27 PM.

Executive Summary

When evaluating DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus against DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731, the pricing structure is a key differentiator. DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is approximately 1% more cost-effective per 1 million tokens overall.

However, when looking at raw reasoning capabilities, DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads with a statistical ELO score of 1441. For tasks involving complex logic, coding, or instruction-following, developers might prefer DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731, provided their budget allows for the API burn rate.

Raw Technical comparison

Metric
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Performance (ELO)
1441
1441
Input Cost / 1M
$0.30
$0.01
Output Cost / 1M
$1.00
$1.28
Context Window
163,840 tokens
1,048,576 tokens

Verdict

If you are looking for pure performance and capability, Tie is statistically superior. However, if API burn rate is the primary concern, DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 wins out aggressively in pricing.

People Also Ask

Is DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus cheaper than DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

No. DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is the more cost-effective model, operating at a lower price point per 1 million tokens.

Which model has the larger context window?

The DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 model has the advantage in memory, offering a massive 1,048,576 token limit for document ingestion.

Related Comparisons

Compare DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs Apodex: Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)Compare DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs inclusionAI: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free)Compare DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs Cohere: North Mini Code (free)Compare DeepSeek: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni (free)