Directory · Model comparison
DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs GPT-5.6 Luna
Side-by-side API economics and benchmarks. Per-1M input and output rates, context window, and verified metrics.
Tale of the tape
Head-to-head specs pulled from each model profile.
| Metric | DeepSeek-V4-Flash | GPT-5.6 Luna |
|---|---|---|
| Input cost / 1M | $0.14 | $1.00 |
| Output cost / 1M | $0.28 | $6.00 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| MMLU score | — | — |
Cost verdict
Enter monthly input and output volumes to see total cost savings.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- Input: 1M × $0.14 = $0.14
- Output: 1M × $0.28 = $0.28
- Total
- $0.42
GPT-5.6 Luna
- Input: 1M × $1.00 = $1.00
- Output: 1M × $6.00 = $6.00
- Total
- $7.00
Total cost savings
$6.58
DeepSeek-V4-Flash saves $6.58 per month vs the other model at this volume.
Model routing savings
Uses this page's verified rates. GPT-5.6 Luna is the premium route (higher combined per-1M cost); DeepSeek-V4-Flash handles routine traffic.
All premium
GPT-5.6 Luna
$350.00
100% of input and output on the premium route
Routed stack
80% → DeepSeek-V4-Flash
20% → GPT-5.6 Luna
$86.80
- Routine slice
- $16.80
- Premium slice
- $70.00
Monthly savings
$263.20
75.2% lower
Rates pulled from this page's model database entries (gpt-5-6-luna, deepseek-v4-flash) — same per-1M input/output figures as Tale of the tape. Production routing needs quality gates and monitoring.
Related comparisons
More head-to-head model matchups.