DeepSeekDeepSeek V4 FlashVSMistral AIMistral Medium 3.5
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 Mistral Medium 3.5 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)17.1x 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)
$3.00Input: $1.50 | Output: $7.50Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Mistral Medium 3.5
DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper than Mistral Medium 3.5. DeepSeek V4 Flash has a blended cost of $0.17/1M tokens, which is about 17.1x cheaper than Mistral Medium 3.5 at $3.00/1M tokens.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for DeepSeek V4 Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5.
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.