Competitive with opus 4.8 but weaker than sol or fable. About 20x cheaper.
swiftcoder•Aug 12, 2026
How does it stack against the updated Deepseek Flash version?
k__•Aug 12, 2026
Around 5 percentage points better. (E.g., 87% instead of 82%)
Gecko4072•Aug 12, 2026
So not worth it over flash? Even at ~7x the size it isn't worth the price hike. Flash may be a monster of a model due to all the RL it received from free usage everywhere.
k__•Aug 12, 2026
I tried the previous Pro model and in the end it was 50% more expensive than the previous Flash.
Wasn't worth it.
saaga•Aug 12, 2026
Yea that's what I was thinking.
Flash is nuts. I find I have to be a more precise and specific with it but damn. It's crossed a threshold of production grade coding for sure.
I was running a session over a couple days and it didnt cross a dollar lol.
networked•Aug 12, 2026
I haven't tried DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 yet. Recent experience tells me that larger models are worth it in non-obvious ways. MiMo-V2.5-Pro solved problems that DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 couldn't solve for me: for example, adding a live counter for elided reasoning lines to a terminal-based coding harness. You wouldn't be able to tell from the scores on their respective Artifical Analysis page (https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/mimo-v2-5-pro, https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/deepseek-v4-flash). I like the DeepSeek V4 models, though. They critiqued my engineering decisions better than MiMo, and they seem to have a distinct aesthetic in the SVGs they write.
trollbridge•Aug 12, 2026
Interesting - I've been dropping into MiMo-V2.5-Pro-UltraSpeed whenever Flash seems to be "stuck" and it usually figures it out. I use UltraSpeed just because I'm so frustrated by then that I'm impatient.
I still find 5.6-Sol can solve some things neither of those can, but it's so slow (and it's so hard to trace / debug the reasoning) that I just let it run overnight.
npn•Aug 12, 2026
I still believe this is not the full potential of pro models. I expect they will release another checkpoint later this year.
eli•Aug 12, 2026
Opus 5 medium to Opus 5 max is only 3 points, if that puts it in context
sparkling•Aug 12, 2026
deepseek-v4-flash feels so fast and snappy, i'm loving it. Happy to trade speed for the the 5% degraded benchmarking performance.
k__•Aug 12, 2026
I wouldn't exactly call it snappy, but faster than Pro, yes.
ericd•Aug 12, 2026
Single request depth on vllm with dspark, I'm getting ~200 tps, I'd say it's pretty snappy.
JacobAsmuth•Aug 12, 2026
Well sure but you're running on tens of thousands of dollars of hardware.
saaga•Aug 12, 2026
I feel the same too. I like the speed.
I'm also a big fan of glm 5.2 fast. I can't wait for like 2000 t/s on these haha.
pixelesque•Aug 12, 2026
I've found Pro to be a lot better per "task" than the recently released Flash for code reviews and things (via OpenRouter running in pi.dev).
Flash makes a lot more initial mistakes, and then has to re-check stuff, and produces much more output compared to Pro. It often gets to the correct result eventually, but the output volume is often 5x more than for Pro, and the initial outputs are often wrong, with the first few saying something wrong (like there's a bug, or the code won't compile when it does), and then saying things like "Wait, let me re-check:", or "Actually, looking at it more carefully:" and then it thinks a bit more and eventually gets to the right answer.
swiftcoder•Aug 12, 2026
yeah, I've definitely noticed one has to be quite precise to keep Flash on the straight-and-narrow
surgical_fire•Aug 12, 2026
I use a plan -> implement wotkflow for this reason.
pro plans, flash implements. I am super happy with how flash behaves like that.
JacobAsmuth•Aug 12, 2026
Per token. You need to look at pricing per task.
trollbridge•Aug 12, 2026
... which still comes out cheaper, since DeepSeek caches so much more.
I keep track of my token consumption even on subscription plans and my equiv. cost for my 5.6-Sol usage is around $4000-$8000 a month.
xynelius•Aug 12, 2026
If that wasn't impressive enough, it's actually ~60x cheaper if you take into account the typical cache-read/input/output split in agentic coding, and the deep discount for cache reads offered by DeepSeek. Opencode has some public data on the typical split [1]:
For DeepSeek V4 Pro the typical split is 750 in, 290 out, 82k cached.
Cost per request for V4 Pro: $0.000875 per request.
Equivalent Opus cost (w/o taking into account cache write costs): $0.052 per request.
I find it interesting how much adoption seems to be influenced by momentum. Some of these Chinese models are surprisingly capable, but developers often default to the models that are already established as the “industry standard
HawtAds•Aug 12, 2026
Hacker News is very Bay Area/US tech centric where spending a few hundred a month on AI is just pocket change. The weaker AI models with more questionable data retention policies are popular in developing countries. I think the new Facebook muse model will be similarly popular.
BlackRabbit1•Aug 12, 2026
A lot of it/infrastructure departments aren't aware that you can use Asian models hosted within the US or even EU.
spacebanana7•Aug 12, 2026
In an enterprise setting Chinese models are often discouraged due to political risk. They don't want to need to remove a model that's deeply embedded in their stack. And it's entirely feasible that the US gov bans federal contractors from using them in the next 6 months for example, or that EU AI safety rules effectively ban them too.
BlackRabbit1•Aug 12, 2026
There are EU/US providers offering Deepseek/Qwen/Kimi/etc.-as-a-Service. With zero ties of their infrastructure to China.
Fully compatible with the well known Antrophic API.
You only have to replace the URL and your key.
sinuhe69•Aug 12, 2026
Well, one reason is that we always have to work with the quirks of each model. So, a know model is often preferred over a new/unknown one because we have to be vigilant again. (Negative) surprises are mentally exhausting in the long run.
IMO, you can work much better when you know the model.
ianm218•Aug 12, 2026
I suspect if you follow dev groups in developing countries people are much more focused on token/ price efficiency.
For funded startups it mostly just doesn’t matter a ton unless you are passing on inference in your product at scale
The timing looks like they are trying to take the wind out of Qwen's sails by releasing this on the same day that Qwen released the weights of Qwen3.8-max. Or maybe it's coincidence...
For comparison I looked at Qwen's claimed benchmarks for Qwen3.8-max (https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.8). Assuming each published set of benchmarks is believable, it looks like v4 Pro 0813 is better on average but overall performance is comparable. Pro 0813 is much cheaper. If you don't need vision capabilities then you don't have much reason to use Qwen3.8-max.
- 43.6 on HLE (Presumably without tools). Pro 0813 is a little worse.
- 86.6 on Terminal Bench 2.1. Pro 0813 is better.
- 55.9 on NL2Repo. Pro 0813 is better.
- 27 on Agent's Last Exam. Pro 0813 is a little worse.
- 72.5 on Toolathon-Verified. Pro 0813 is better.
- 56.6 on DeepSWE 1.1. If the DeepSWE listed for Pro 0813 is the same version, then Pro is better.
- 27.3 on AutomationBench. If the AutomationBench (Public) listed for Pro 0813 is the same, then Pro is better.
I guess we do need to wait to see if the upcoming DS pricing increase is enough to change the value proposition. As it is now, they could double or triple prices and it still would be a better value to use DS. I bet they know that.
trollbridge•Aug 12, 2026
By that standard, the release of Grok 4.6 was also timed on the same day.
Given how I think DeepSeek operates... I think they just release it when they feel it's ready, and don't even seem that concerned with what other people are doing.
somenameforme•Aug 12, 2026
Their leaks would confirm this sort of attitude. They're not trying to become the top player or anything like that - just working to play their part in pushing LLM tech forward and going from there. It was quite refreshing from the 'here's how we're going to dominate the world' nonsense. It's undoubtedly the same attitude that just let's them shrug and cancel the fund raising round after the leaks came from said funding round.
eli•Aug 12, 2026
Official pricing only kinda matters for an open weight model, no?
parsimo2010•Aug 12, 2026
It still matters as a point of comparison until other providers come online. If the consensus price from other providers is much different that can be compared then. But for now we have $0.435 / $0.87 for v4 Pro 0813 (with increase announced but we don't know the new pricing), and $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8-max. So until we get other data points that is what we have to look at.
maherbeg•Aug 12, 2026
I mean at the rate of model releases happening, I think a lot of these will collide more often than expected!
bel8•Aug 12, 2026
So it's a Fable class LLM?
DSV4Pro vs Fable5
HLE w tools 60.0 vs 63.0
Terminal Bench 2.1 87.9 vs 88.0
Cybergym 83.3 vs 83.1
DeepSWE 62.7 vs 70.0
Toolathlon-Verified 74.1 vs 77.9
AutomationBench (Public) 31.8 vs 29.1
DSBench-FullStack 71.1 vs 77.2
DSBench-Hard 67.2 vs 68.3
aftbit•Aug 12, 2026
Fabble lol
eli•Aug 12, 2026
Fable's guardrails would never let it do something like Cybergym so at least for that one it's measuring Opus 5
wren6991•Aug 12, 2026
We have a first-party figure from the system card [1]:
> Mythos 5 reproduced 83.8% of targeted vulnerabilities on a single try, and produced at
least one crash in 99.4% of tasks. This is comparable to Claude Mythos Preview, which
reproduced 83.1% of targeted vulnerabilities and produced a crash in 97.1% of tasks. By
contrast, Claude Opus 4.8 achieved a score of 78.1% (95.7% any crash).
So their quoted figure exactly matches the figure for Mythos Preview, although they don't state the provenance. It could also quite possibly be an independent measurement of Opus 5.
Currently burning money quickly on official deepseek api. They are also increasing pricing starting today. V4 Flash 0731 still feels like the most outstanding model of the past few months and probably to come.
i'm doing opencode <-> openrouter <-> official deepseek api (i don't get the opencode hate, i like it)
how are you doing it?
am also using Kimi K3 via kimi-code
and also GLM 5.2 via ZCode
happy with all three, they're trailing frontier but i figure if i'm running GNU/Linux then i ought to favour open weights models with my €s -- reduced my usage of claude/gpt to the ~$20 tier just to keep abreast of claude_code/codex developments
book_mike•Aug 12, 2026
What I care about is whether the model is capable of the tasks I give it at the lowest cost. Right now I'm using Kimi-K3/GLM-5.2/Minimax. Sonnet is great but I burn through the tokens too fast. Opus 5 set to max is amazing and more intelligent than all of us. .998 of the time I don't need that kind of intelligence. I just need the job done.
okamiueru•Aug 12, 2026
How do you define intelligence? I encounter that kind of sentiment all too often, and I have to assume we go by wildly different understanding of what that might entail.
Readerium•Aug 12, 2026
V4 Pro has vision correct?
trollbridge•Aug 12, 2026
No.
alecsm•Aug 12, 2026
I've been using the last Deepseek Flash update for a week and I'm amazed. It was a capable model for easy tasks but now it looks like it can do some heavy development for peanuts.
I can't wait to try this new one.
yipinwong•Aug 12, 2026
Worse than Luna but more expensive than Luna.
Sticking with Luna without sending my data to Deepseek (China)
9 Comments
Competitive with opus 4.8 but weaker than sol or fable. About 20x cheaper.
Wasn't worth it.
I was running a session over a couple days and it didnt cross a dollar lol.
I still find 5.6-Sol can solve some things neither of those can, but it's so slow (and it's so hard to trace / debug the reasoning) that I just let it run overnight.
Flash makes a lot more initial mistakes, and then has to re-check stuff, and produces much more output compared to Pro. It often gets to the correct result eventually, but the output volume is often 5x more than for Pro, and the initial outputs are often wrong, with the first few saying something wrong (like there's a bug, or the code won't compile when it does), and then saying things like "Wait, let me re-check:", or "Actually, looking at it more carefully:" and then it thinks a bit more and eventually gets to the right answer.
pro plans, flash implements. I am super happy with how flash behaves like that.
I keep track of my token consumption even on subscription plans and my equiv. cost for my 5.6-Sol usage is around $4000-$8000 a month.
For DeepSeek V4 Pro the typical split is 750 in, 290 out, 82k cached.
Cost per request for V4 Pro: $0.000875 per request.
Equivalent Opus cost (w/o taking into account cache write costs): $0.052 per request.
[1] https://opencode.ai/docs/go/#usage-limits
Fully compatible with the well known Antrophic API.
You only have to replace the URL and your key.
For funded startups it mostly just doesn’t matter a ton unless you are passing on inference in your product at scale
For comparison I looked at Qwen's claimed benchmarks for Qwen3.8-max (https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.8). Assuming each published set of benchmarks is believable, it looks like v4 Pro 0813 is better on average but overall performance is comparable. Pro 0813 is much cheaper. If you don't need vision capabilities then you don't have much reason to use Qwen3.8-max.
- 43.6 on HLE (Presumably without tools). Pro 0813 is a little worse.
- 86.6 on Terminal Bench 2.1. Pro 0813 is better.
- 55.9 on NL2Repo. Pro 0813 is better.
- 27 on Agent's Last Exam. Pro 0813 is a little worse.
- 72.5 on Toolathon-Verified. Pro 0813 is better.
- 56.6 on DeepSWE 1.1. If the DeepSWE listed for Pro 0813 is the same version, then Pro is better.
- 27.3 on AutomationBench. If the AutomationBench (Public) listed for Pro 0813 is the same, then Pro is better.
I guess we do need to wait to see if the upcoming DS pricing increase is enough to change the value proposition. As it is now, they could double or triple prices and it still would be a better value to use DS. I bet they know that.
Given how I think DeepSeek operates... I think they just release it when they feel it's ready, and don't even seem that concerned with what other people are doing.
> Mythos 5 reproduced 83.8% of targeted vulnerabilities on a single try, and produced at least one crash in 99.4% of tasks. This is comparable to Claude Mythos Preview, which reproduced 83.1% of targeted vulnerabilities and produced a crash in 97.1% of tasks. By contrast, Claude Opus 4.8 achieved a score of 78.1% (95.7% any crash).
So their quoted figure exactly matches the figure for Mythos Preview, although they don't state the provenance. It could also quite possibly be an independent measurement of Opus 5.
[1]: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/57a52ea7d8f0e54e8a542e90826608...
* GPT-5.6 Sol: 65.5
* Fable 5 (w/ fallback): 64.5
* Opus 5: 64.0
* DS-V4-Pro 0813: 62.5
* Kimi-K3: 62.3
* DS-V4-Flash 0731: 55.8
* GLM-5.2: 47.3
edit: there are banner announcements saying v4 flash pricing will increase first then overall by an undetermined amount
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/deepseek-pl...
The prices on OpenRouter still look the same.
i'm doing opencode <-> openrouter <-> official deepseek api (i don't get the opencode hate, i like it)
how are you doing it?
am also using Kimi K3 via kimi-code
and also GLM 5.2 via ZCode
happy with all three, they're trailing frontier but i figure if i'm running GNU/Linux then i ought to favour open weights models with my €s -- reduced my usage of claude/gpt to the ~$20 tier just to keep abreast of claude_code/codex developments
I can't wait to try this new one.