DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Grok 4.3
Compare DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Grok 4.3 on the metrics that decide an agent workload.
| Metric | DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Grok 4.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Fireworks AI | xAI |
| Input / 1M | $1.74 | $1.25 |
| Output / 1M | $3.48 | $2.50 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.14 (−92%) | $0.20 (−84%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $1.52 | $1.13 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Cache capture | 80% | 76% |
| Warm TTFT | 130ms (−63%) | 280ms (−56%) |
| Quality index | 88 | 92 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Pick DeepSeek-V4-Pro when it answers faster on warm cache hits, it captures more of the available reuse, it is open-weights for on-prem and regulated lanes.
Pick Grok 4.3 when it scores higher on the composite quality index, it is cheaper once prefix reuse is priced in.
Grok 4.3 wins on both reuse-adjusted cost and quality here, so it is the default pick. Reach for DeepSeek-V4-Pro only when a specific constraint (modality, latency floor, or licensing) forces it.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Grok 4.3, answered.
Is DeepSeek-V4-Pro or Grok 4.3 cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, DeepSeek-V4-Pro blends to about $1.52 per 1M tokens and Grok 4.3 to about $1.13. Grok 4.3 is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro has the larger window: 1M vs 1M tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro shows higher measured cache capture (80% vs 76%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.