Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) vs Grok Code Fast 1
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) unranked (Not scored); Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Grok Code Fast 1 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 33 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max); 0 to Grok Code Fast 1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) only
- 33
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window; Grok Code Fast 1 is the better fit if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Grok Code Fast 1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max). That is roughly 5.4x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Δ | Grok Code Fast 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)68.8 | Margin→ 2.0 | Grok Code Fast 170.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)63.8 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)55.3 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)94.8 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79%B 70.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Δ 8.2SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) scored 79%; Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)$0.14 input / $0.28 output | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not available | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)Not available | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max)1M | Grok Code Fast 1256K | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 73.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 45.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 69% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1189 | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 47.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 31.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 95% | 75.7% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 34.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 831 | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 81.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 31.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 22.9% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 35.6% | — | Not comparable |
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 3052.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79% | 70.8% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 56.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 44.9% | 36.2% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 86.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 34.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 78.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 88.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 88.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.3% | 21.6% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 89.4% | 72.7% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 32.1% | 7.5% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -22.9% | -36.0% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 37.2% | 23.8% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 95.8% | 78.5% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1238 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 79.2% | 41.4% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Grok Code Fast 1?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) and Grok Code Fast 1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash (Max) or Grok Code Fast 1?
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 68.8. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.