Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)
76
Grok 4.3
79
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) #13 · Grok 4.3 unranked
Pick Grok 4.3 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+26.4 difference
Knowledge
+6.1 difference
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)
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 (Max) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Grok 4.3 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 79 versus 76. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
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 (Max). That is roughly 8.9x on output cost alone.
Grok 4.3 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 76. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 88.1% and 90.1%.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 53.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.7 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.