Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
71
Grok 4.3
79
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #19 · Grok 4.3 unranked
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+24.9 difference
Knowledge
+3.3 difference
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
Grok 4.3
$0.14 / $0.28
$1.25 / $2.5
N/A
209 t/s
N/A
12.36s
1M
1M
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.3 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 71. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High). That is roughly 8.9x on output cost alone.
Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 71. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 29.4% and 35%.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 53.9. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.2 versus 47.3. Grok 4.3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.