DeepSeek V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
Compare DeepSeek V3.2 and DeepSeek V4 Flash across pricing, context window, capabilities, benchmarks, and API access to choose the better fit for reasoning-heavy tasks versus long-context workloads.
Overview Comparison
Structured side-by-side differences for the highest-signal model metadata.
Provider
The entity that currently provides this model.
Model ID
The routed model identifier exposed by upstream providers.
Input Context Window
The number of tokens supported by the input context window.
Maximum Output Tokens
The number of tokens that can be generated by the model in a single request.
Open Source
Whether the model's code is available for public use.
Release Date
When the model was first released.
Knowledge Cut-off Date
When the model's knowledge was last updated.
API Providers
The providers that currently expose the model through an API.
Modalities
Types of data each model can process or return.
Pricing Comparison
Compare current token pricing before you choose the cheaper or more scalable API option.
Capabilities Comparison
See where each model overlaps, where they differ, and which one supports more of the features you care about.
Benchmark Comparison
Shared benchmark rows make it easier to compare performance where both models have published scores.
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
|
AIME 2025
American math olympiad problems (2025)
|
||
|
GPQA Diamond
PhD-level science questions (biology, physics, chemistry)
|
||
|
HLE
Questions that challenge frontier models across many domains
|
||
|
LiveCodeBench
Real-world coding tasks from recent competitions
|
||
|
MMLU-Pro
Expert knowledge across 14 academic disciplines
|
||
|
SciCode
Scientific research coding and numerical methods
|
||
|
SWE-bench Verified
Real GitHub issues requiring multi-file code fixes
|
What Reddit discussions say about DeepSeek V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek V3.2 and DeepSeek V4 Flash are both surfacing live Reddit discussions, giving this comparison a community layer beyond specs and benchmarks.
The most visible threads right now are clustered in r/LocalLLaMA, r/DeepSeek, r/SillyTavernAI. 1 thread is showing up in both models' discussion sets, which is useful for side-by-side evaluation.
Tested Gemma 4 (31B) on our benchmark. Genuinely did not expect this.
100% survival, 5 out of 5 runs profitable, +1,144% median ROI. At $0.20 per run.
It outperforms GPT-5.2 ($4.43/run), Gemini 3 Pro ($2.95/run), Sonnet 4.6 ($7.90/run), and absolutely destroys every Chinese open-source model we've tested — Qwen 3.5 397B, Qwen 3.5 9B, DeepSeek V3.2, GLM-5. None of them even survive consistently.
The only model that beats Gemma 4 is Opus 4.6 at $36 per run. That's 180× more expensive.
31 billion parameters. Twenty cents. We double-checked the config, the prompt, the model ID — everything is identical to every other model on the leaderboard. Same seed, same tools, same simulation. It's just this good.
Strongly recommend trying it for your agentic workflows. We've tested 22 models so far and this is by far the best cost-to-performance ratio we've ever seen.
Full breakdown with charts and day-by-day analysis: [foodtruckbench.com/blog/gemma-4-31b](https://foodtruckbench.com/blog/gemma-4-31b)
*FoodTruck Bench is an AI business simulation benchmark — the agent runs a food truck for 30 days, making decisions about location, menu, pricing, staff, and inventory. Leaderboard at* [*foodtruckbench.com*](https://foodtruckbench.com)
**EDIT — Gemma 4 26B A4B results are in.**
Lots of you asked about the 26B A4B variant. Ran 5 simulations, here's the honest picture:
**60% survival** (3/5 completed, 2 bankrupt). Median ROI: +119%, Net Worth: $4,386. Cost: $0.31/run. Placed #7 on the leaderboard — above every Chinese model and Sonnet 4.5, below everything else.
Both bankruptcies were loan defaults — same pattern we see across models. The 3 surviving runs were solid, especially the best one at +296% ROI.
**But here's the catch.** The 26B A4B is the only model out of 23 tested that required custom output sanitization to function. It produces valid tool-call intent, but the JSON formatting is consistently broken — malformed quotes, trailing garbage tokens, invalid escapes. I had to build a 3-stage sanitizer specifically for this model. No other model needed anything like this. The business decisions themselves are unmodified — the sanitizer only fixes JSON formatting, not strategy. But if you're planning to use this model in agentic workflows, be prepared to handle its output format. It does not produce clean function calls out of the box.
**TL;DR:** 31B dense → 100% survival, $0.20/run, #3 overall. 26B A4B → 60% survival, $0.31/run, #7 overall, but requires custom output parsing. The 31B is the clear winner. Updated leaderboard: foodtruckbench.com
# Introduction
We introduce **DeepSeek-V3.2**, a model that harmonizes high computational efficiency with superior reasoning and agent performance. Our approach is built upon three key technical breakthroughs:
1. **DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA):** We introduce DSA, an efficient attention mechanism that substantially reduces computational complexity while preserving model performance, specifically optimized for long-context scenarios.
2. **Scalable Reinforcement Learning Framework:** By implementing a robust RL protocol and scaling post-training compute, *DeepSeek-V3.2* performs comparably to GPT-5. Notably, our high-compute variant, **DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale**, **surpasses GPT-5** and exhibits reasoning proficiency on par with Gemini-3.0-Pro.
* *Achievement:* 🥇 **Gold-medal performance** in the 2025 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) and International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI).
3. **Large-Scale Agentic Task Synthesis Pipeline:** To integrate **reasoning into tool-use** scenarios, we developed a novel synthesis pipeline that systematically generates training data at scale. This facilitates scalable agentic post-training, improving compliance and generalization in complex interactive environments.
[https://huggingface.co/collections/deepseek-ai/deepseek-v32-68da2f317324c70047c28f66](https://huggingface.co/collections/deepseek-ai/deepseek-v32-68da2f317324c70047c28f66)
https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news250929
TLDR: It's a near linear model with almost O(kL) attention complexity.
Paper link: [https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp/blob/main/DeepSeek\_V3\_2.pdf](https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp/blob/main/DeepSeek_V3_2.pdf)
According to their paper, the Deepseek Sparse Attention computes attention for only k selected previous tokens, meaning it's a linear attention model with decoding complexity O(kL). What's different from previous linear models is it has a O(L\^2) index selector to select the tokens to compute attention for. Even though the index selector has square complexity but it's fast enough to be neglected.
https://preview.redd.it/h0zys7b4o3sf1.png?width=1390&format=png&auto=webp&s=00a7ea8ada91109d417b8d6e3f490ae9743c18b2
https://preview.redd.it/has2qyz7o3sf1.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=0742135b2cb1be9bd853b614097597d521a4ef54
[Cost for V3.2 only increase very little thanks to linear attention](https://preview.redd.it/053i7pdro3sf1.png?width=1356&format=png&auto=webp&s=52adfb1bf9d0ee03f0a7d8e7b31340ab63b2f4b4)
Previous linear model attempts for linear models from other teams like Google and Minimax have not been successful. Let's see if DS can make the breakthrough this time.
Which model should you choose?
Use the summary below to decide which model better fits your workflow, budget, and feature requirements.
DeepSeek V3.2
DeepSeek V3.2 is a stronger fit for reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows, cost-efficient scale.
DeepSeek V4 Flash
DeepSeek V4 Flash is a stronger fit for long-context workloads, reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows.
Choose DeepSeek V3.2 if you prioritize reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows, cost-efficient scale. Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash if your workflow depends more on long-context workloads, reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows.
Common questions about DeepSeek V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
What is the main difference between DeepSeek V3.2 and DeepSeek V4 Flash?
DeepSeek V3.2 leans toward reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows, cost-efficient scale, while DeepSeek V4 Flash is better suited to long-context workloads, reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows.
Which model is cheaper: DeepSeek V3.2 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
DeepSeek V4 Flash starts lower on input pricing at $0.1400 per 1M input tokens, compared with $0.2600 for DeepSeek V3.2.
Which model has the larger context window: DeepSeek V3.2 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
DeepSeek V3.2 is listed with a context window of 160,000, while DeepSeek V4 Flash is listed with 1.0M.
How should I evaluate DeepSeek V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash for my use case?
This comparison currently includes 7 shared benchmark rows, helping you compare practical performance across overlapping evaluations.