DeepSeek V4 Pro
MIT Open SourceDeveloped by DeepSeek · 1.6T Sparse MoE with Hybrid CSA/HCA Attention · Modalities: Text, Vision · Released 2026-09-10
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 87.8/100Architectural & Production Profile
DeepSeek's 1.6T parameter open-weight MoE flagship delivering 80.6% SWE-bench Verified and 90.1% GPQA Diamond with 1M context at $1.32/1M input tokens.
Open-weight 1.6T MoE powerhouse designed for cost-effective full-repository code generation, mathematical reasoning, and persistent chain-of-thought multi-step agent workflows.
- Architecture
- 1.6T Sparse MoE with Hybrid CSA/HCA Attention
- Modalities
- Text, Vision
- Max Output Tokens
- 128,000 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $1.980 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting DeepSeek V4 Pro
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek Platform → | Primary Host | $1.32 | $3.96 | 520ms | 78 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$1.32/1M in · $3.96/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.145/1M read · $1.32/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving DeepSeek V4 Pro (36)
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 4 Argon
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 34.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (330ms faster than Gemini 4 Argon) with 78 vs. 115 tok/s throughput. Gemini 4 Argon leads coding evaluations at 84.5% SWE-bench Verified vs. 80.6% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 93.8% vs. 90.1% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 4.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (140ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 84 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 75.8% for Claude 4.5 Sonnet and 90.1% vs. 84.2% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 67.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (3.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (160ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 78 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 80.6% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 93.2% vs. 90.1% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 81.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.25 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $1.50 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (5.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (415ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 210 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 90.1% vs. 79.2% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GPT-5
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 47.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5 delivers lower response latency at 340ms TTFT (180ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 105 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 74.9% for GPT-5 and 90.1% vs. 85.4% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 86.8% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (7.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (220ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 78 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 75.7% for GPT-6 Astra and 90.1% vs. 96.0% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek R1 is 58.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.55 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $2.19 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (2.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (930ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 78 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 90.1% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 83.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (6.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (210ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 165 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.4% for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) and 90.1% vs. 91.3% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs OpenAI o3
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 34.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (630ms faster than OpenAI o3) with 78 vs. 82 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.7% for OpenAI o3 and 90.1% vs. 87.7% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Claude 4 Opus
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 91.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (11.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (400ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 78 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 90.1% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (20ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 78 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 90.1% vs. 78.5% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro is 5.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.1 Pro delivers lower response latency at 420ms TTFT (100ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 98 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.8% for Gemini 3.1 Pro and 90.1% vs. 82.4% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Grok 4
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 47.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 4 delivers lower response latency at 480ms TTFT (40ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 95 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 73.2% for Grok 4 and 90.1% vs. 86.2% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick is 84.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (6.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (385ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 175 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 90.1% vs. 73.8% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 87.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (8.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 185 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 80.6% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 91.7% vs. 90.1% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 94.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (17.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (442ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 265 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 90.1% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs OpenAI o4-mini
OpenAI o4-mini is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (160ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 78 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 90.1% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 is 89.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.14 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.28 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (9.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V3 delivers lower response latency at 410ms TTFT (110ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 78 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek V3 and 90.1% vs. 59.1% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 90.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (11.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (405ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 155 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 90.1% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs OpenAI o3-mini
OpenAI o3-mini is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($1.10 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $4.40 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (430ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 78 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 90.1% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 39.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.80 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $4.00 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (330ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 130 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 90.1% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Sonnet delivers lower response latency at 310ms TTFT (210ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 80 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 90.1% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 92.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (13.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.0 Flash delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 185 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 51.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash and 90.1% vs. 63.6% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 77.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $2.50 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (4.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (410ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 180 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 90.1% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is 5.3% cheaper for input tokens ($1.25 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $10.00 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (180ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 78 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 90.1% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-5.3
GLM-5.3 is 73.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.35 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $1.00 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (3.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (360ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 120 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 90.1% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 90.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (11.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (430ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 175 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 90.1% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GPT-4o
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 47.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 100 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 90.1% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 88.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (8.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (300ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 140 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 90.1% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 34.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Both models demonstrate comparable response latency around 520ms TTFT (78 vs. 135 tok/s). GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 80.6% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 92.4% vs. 90.1% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Grok 3
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 56.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (2.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (100ms faster than Grok 3) with 78 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 65.8% for Grok 3 and 90.1% vs. 84.6% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Grok 3 Mini
Grok 3 Mini is 77.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.30 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $1.20 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (4.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (370ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 160 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 90.1% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 90.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (11.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (375ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 165 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 90.1% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 34.0% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (1.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Mistral Large 2 (2411) delivers lower response latency at 380ms TTFT (140ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 75 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 90.1% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs o1
DeepSeek V4 Pro is 91.2% cheaper for input tokens ($1.32 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $3.96 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (11.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, DeepSeek V4 Pro delivers lower response latency at 520ms TTFT (2080ms faster than o1) with 78 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 90.1% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Qwen 3.8 27B
Qwen 3.8 27B is 84.8% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (6.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (400ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 140 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Pro leads coding evaluations at 80.6% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 90.1% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does DeepSeek V4 Pro cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
DeepSeek V4 Pro costs $1.32 per million input tokens and $3.96 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.145 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 89%.
What are DeepSeek V4 Pro's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
DeepSeek V4 Pro achieves 80.6% on SWE-bench Verified, 94.5% on HumanEval coding, 90.1% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 88.4% on MMLU-Pro, and 97.3% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 67/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of DeepSeek V4 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro supports a 1,024,000 token context window (128,000 max output tokens) and operates at 520ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 78 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Open-weight 1.6T MoE powerhouse designed for cost-effective full-repository code generation, mathematical reasoning, and persistent chain-of-thought multi-step agent workflows.