Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base vs Grok 4.3

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

DeepSeek

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Grok 4.3

xAI

64.2/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 54.5–74.0

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
0
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
24
Grok 4.3 only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
51.5
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
66.4
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
3 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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 Base
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.0025
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.07
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Grok 4.3
$0.09
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

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

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

No comparable hosted API rate

Grok 4.3

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Provider availability

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Generally Available · DeepSeek API, open weights

DeepSeek V4 release

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Non-Reasoning

Grok 4.3

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Open Weight

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Open Weight

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

2026-04-24

Grok 4.3

2026-04-30

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
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.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence26 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
    Grok 4.343.86%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
    Grok 4.312.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • BigCodeBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base59.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • HumanEval

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base76.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • BBH

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base87.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • DROP

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base88.7%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • HellaSwag

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base88.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • WinoGrande

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base81.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • CLUEWSC

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base85.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base51.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • AGIEval

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base83.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base90.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base90.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base73.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMLU

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base90.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base93.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • CMMLU

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base90.8%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • MultiLoKo

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base51.1%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base55.2%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base53.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • FACTS Parametric

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base62.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • TriviaQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base85.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • GSM8K

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base92.6%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • MATH

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base64.5%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • CMath

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base90.9%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MGSM

    DeepSeek V4 Pro Base84.4%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Grok 4.3?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Grok 4.3?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Grok 4.3?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Grok 4.3?

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 Base or Grok 4.3?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch DeepSeek V4 Pro Base vs Grok 4.3

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.