Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 Pro (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 Pro (Max) and Grok Code Fast 1 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max); 0 to Grok Code Fast 1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
- 36
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) makes more sense if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Grok Code Fast 1 is the better fit if 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 Pro (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 $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max). DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 Pro (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 Pro (Max) | Δ | Grok Code Fast 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9 | Margin← 0.1 | Grok Code Fast 170.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1 | MarginNo overlap | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2 | 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 80.6%B 70.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 9.8SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 80.6%; Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not available | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not available | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1M | Grok Code Fast 1256K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 48.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1307 | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 51.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 96.2% | 75.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 40.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 932 | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 40.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 25.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 64% | — | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 3206.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.6% | 70.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 76.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 49.93% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.0% | 36.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.3% | 21.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.8% | 72.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 7.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.0% | -36.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.3% | 23.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 94.0% | 78.5% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Grok Code Fast 1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.5% | 41.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Grok Code Fast 1?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 Pro (Max) or Grok Code Fast 1?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.9 versus 70.8. 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.