DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 FlashVSMistral AIMinistral 3 14B
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing DeepSeek V4 Flash and Ministral 3 14B directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
49.1%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
80%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.1x cheaper
$0.17Input: $0.14 | Output: $0.28Context WindowLarger
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
N/Acomplex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
N/Agraduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.20Input: $0.20 | Output: $0.20Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Ministral 3 14B
DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper than Ministral 3 14B. DeepSeek V4 Flash has a blended cost of $0.17/1M tokens, which is about 1.1x cheaper than Ministral 3 14B at $0.20/1M tokens.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for DeepSeek V4 Flash and Ministral 3 14B.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.