Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Hy4 preview

Updated October 13, 2026. Rank says DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public point estimate, 62.86 versus 60.86. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 17 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
DeepSeek logo

DeepSeek

62.86/100

Estimated · Public rank #41

Conditional range 48.5–77.2

Model B
Tencent logo

Tencent

60.86/100

Estimated · Public rank #48

Conditional range 46.5–75.2

Shared results
17
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 only
24
Hy4 preview only
13
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8
Estimated: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and Hy4 preview. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Hy4 preview

    Hy4 preview has the higher public coding point estimate, 57.1 to 47.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

    Confidence: limited
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Hy4 preview is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

47.7DeepSeek V4 Pro 081357.1Hy4 preview

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Hy4 preview has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
47.7
Supported · #47/148
Hy4 preview
57.1
Supported · #26/148
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 8 public rows
Reading
Hy4 preview leads · intervals overlap

Agentic

Directional only
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
53.2
Supported · #41/123
Hy4 preview
54.5
Estimated · #37/123
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 15 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
63.1
Estimated · #41/180
Hy4 preview
63.6
Estimated · #39/180
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
60.7
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Hy4 preview
88.3
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
87.4
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Hy4 preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.0033
Fits in one request
Hy4 preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.07788
Fits in one request
Hy4 preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.0748
Fits in one request
Hy4 preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Hy4 preview has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Reasoning

Hy4 preview

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Open Weight

Hy4 preview

Open Weight

License

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Open Weight

Hy4 preview

Open Weight

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

2026-08-13

Hy4 preview

2026-08-28

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public point estimate, 62.86 versus 60.86. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Hy4 preview?

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public point estimate, 62.86 versus 60.86. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Hy4 preview?

Hy4 preview has the higher public coding point estimate, 57.1 to 47.7, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Hy4 preview?

Hy4 preview scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 54.5 to 53.2. Hy4 preview is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Hy4 preview?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Hy4 preview?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence54 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Hy4 preview85.4%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.4%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081360.0%
    Source
    Hy4 preview55.4%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081373.6%
    Source
    Hy4 preview83.7%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081351.8%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.3%
    Source
    Hy4 preview78.4%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081374.1%
    Source
    Hy4 preview74.1%
    Source

    Tie

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081325.7%
    Source
    Hy4 preview22.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081331.8%
    Source
    Hy4 preview32.1%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081354.7%
    Source
    Hy4 preview55.1%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • WideResearch

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview83.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview77.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview37.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview62.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview61.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BankerToolBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview78.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview53.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081393.5%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 08133206.0
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081380.6%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081355.4%
    Source
    Hy4 preview65.7%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081376.2%
    Source
    Hy4 preview82.9%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.93%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Hy4 preview85.4%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.5%
    Source
    Hy4 preview58.9%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • DeepSWE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.7%
    Source
    Hy4 preview64.3%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • DSBench-FullStack

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081371.1%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.2%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081359.0%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081396.4%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview17.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PostTrain Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview35.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • sweMarathon

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview31.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.5%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.0%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.00%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.3%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • CritPt

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview16.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview66.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081384.4%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Hy4 preview92.3%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Hy4 preview92.3%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081342.7%
    Source
    Hy4 preview55.4%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081392.4%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.0%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Hy4 preview43.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081395.2%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081389.8%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081338.3%
    Source
    Hy4 preview74.2%
    Source

    Hy4 preview leads this result

  • Apex Shortlist

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.2%
    Source
    Hy4 preview—

    Not directly comparable

54 public results · 17 shared

Watch DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Hy4 preview

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 13, 2026