Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
More
Summary only

We Tested DeepSeek V4 Pro and Flash Against Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6

We ran DeepSeek V4 Pro and DeepSeek V4 Flash through the same FlowGraph benchmark used for Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6. The Pro scored 77/100 for $2.25, landing between Opus (91) and Kimi (68). The Flash scored 60/100 for $0.02, a record low cost, but the build failed and key outputs were missing. Both models had lease expiry bugs, though Flash outperformed expectations in tool calling reliability. Overall, Opus remains the top performer, but DeepSeek's pricing shifts the cost landscape significantly.

SourceHacker News AIAuthor: nl
We Tested DeepSeek V4 Pro and Flash Against Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions

Summary only

Under the source content permission, this page provides an editorial summary, key points, and a link to the original article.

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 77/100 at $2.25, outperforming Kimi K2.6 (68) but trailing Claude Opus 4.7 (91).
  • DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 60/100 at $0.02, the cheapest test result, but had critical build and routing issues.
  • Both Pro and Flash exhibited a lease expiry completion vulnerability.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 remains the strongest model, with only one reproducible bug.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.

More recent stories on this topic · Models