Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash and GPT-5.4 nano share 5 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 24 to GPT-5.4 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 17
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 nano if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.4 nano is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.79 to 58.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.4 nano's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 43.8 against 38.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 8.1% to 37.7%. DeepSeek V4 Flash does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash. That is roughly 4.5x on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 nano is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash 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 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
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 Flash | Δ | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 | Margin← 19.8 | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 | Margin← 6.2 | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash38.8 | Margin→ 5.0 | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nanoNot measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 8.1%B 37.7%Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 29.6HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 8.1%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 37.7%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 71.2%B 82.8%Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 11.6GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 71.2%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 49.1%B 46.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 FlashΔ 2.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%. DeepSeek V4 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | GPT-5.4 nano400K | DeepSeek V4 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Flash wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | 46.3% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 64% | 56.1% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 40.7% | 35.5% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 54.35% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 39% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 76% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.5% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 24.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 30.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1100 | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 26.10% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 nano wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 71.2% | 82.8% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 8.1% | 37.7% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 24.3% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 38.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 26.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 41.9% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 1.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 9.3% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 25.860% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 6.250% | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 75.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.79 to 58.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 8.1% and 37.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-5.4 nano?
GPT-5.4 nano has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 43.8 versus 38.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-5.4 nano?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 40.8 versus 21. GPT-5.4 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or GPT-5.4 nano?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 49.1 versus 42.9. Inside this category, MCP Atlas 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.