DeepSeek vs DeepSeek

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.

DeepSeek V3.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash

Provider

The entity that currently provides this model.

DeepSeek V3.2 DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash DeepSeek

Model ID

The routed model identifier exposed by upstream providers.

DeepSeek V3.2 deepseek/deepseek-v3.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:free

Input Context Window

The number of tokens supported by the input context window.

DeepSeek V3.2 160,000 tokens
DeepSeek V4 Flash 1.0M tokens

Maximum Output Tokens

The number of tokens that can be generated by the model in a single request.

DeepSeek V3.2 8,000 tokens tokens
DeepSeek V4 Flash 384,000 tokens tokens

Open Source

Whether the model's code is available for public use.

DeepSeek V3.2 No
DeepSeek V4 Flash Yes

Release Date

When the model was first released.

DeepSeek V3.2 Dec 01, 2025
DeepSeek V4 Flash Apr 24, 2026

Knowledge Cut-off Date

When the model's knowledge was last updated.

DeepSeek V3.2 December 2025
DeepSeek V4 Flash Unknown

API Providers

The providers that currently expose the model through an API.

DeepSeek V3.2
OpenRouter
DeepSeek V4 Flash
OpenRouter

Modalities

Types of data each model can process or return.

DeepSeek V3.2
Text Code
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Text

Pricing Comparison

Compare current token pricing before you choose the cheaper or more scalable API option.

DeepSeek V3.2 DeepSeek
Input price $0.26 Per 1M tokens
Output price $0.38 Per 1M tokens
DeepSeek V4 Flash DeepSeek
Input price $0.14 Per 1M tokens
Output price $0.00 Per 1M tokens

Capabilities Comparison

See where each model overlaps, where they differ, and which one supports more of the features you care about.

Capability
DeepSeek V3.2
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Advanced Reasoning Trained with a scalable reinforcement learning framework that extends post-training compute, supporting multi-step logical and mathematical reasoning tasks.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Agentic Task Execution Trained on a synthesis pipeline covering 1,800+ environments and 85,000+ complex instructions, enabling reliable performance on search, code, and general agent workflows.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Code Generation Generates, explains, and debugs code across multiple programming languages, with demonstrated performance at competitive programming benchmarks including IOI and ICPC.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Long-Context Processing Handles inputs up to 160,000 tokens, enabling analysis of lengthy documents, codebases, or multi-turn conversations in a single context window.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Mathematical Problem Solving Achieves gold-medal-level results on the 2025 IMO, CMO, and ICPC World Finals benchmarks, reflecting strong symbolic and numerical reasoning capabilities.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Open Weights Access Released under the MIT License with full model weights available on Hugging Face, allowing local deployment and fine-tuning without usage restrictions.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Reasoning
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash Supported
Sparse Attention Efficiency Uses DeepSeek Sparse Attention (DSA) to reduce attention computation to near-linear complexity (O(kL)), lowering resource requirements for long-context inference.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Structured Output
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash Supported
Text
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash Supported
Thinking in Tool Use Supports integrated reasoning during tool invocation, allowing the model to think through problems while calling external tools in both thinking and non-thinking modes.
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Tools
DeepSeek V3.2 Supported
DeepSeek V4 Flash Supported

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)
DeepSeek V3.2 96.0%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
GPQA Diamond
PhD-level science questions (biology, physics, chemistry)
DeepSeek V3.2 75.1%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
HLE
Questions that challenge frontier models across many domains
DeepSeek V3.2 10.5%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
LiveCodeBench
Real-world coding tasks from recent competitions
DeepSeek V3.2 59.3%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
MMLU-Pro
Expert knowledge across 14 academic disciplines
DeepSeek V3.2 83.7%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
SciCode
Scientific research coding and numerical methods
DeepSeek V3.2 38.7%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
SWE-bench Verified
Real GitHub issues requiring multi-file code fixes
DeepSeek V3.2 77.2%
DeepSeek V4 Flash N/A
Community discussion

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

Open Reddit thread
DeepSeek V3.2 r/LocalLLaMA 1,037 upvotes 210 comments December 1, 2025
deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3.2 · Hugging Face

# 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.

Open Reddit thread
DeepSeek V3.2 r/LocalLLaMA 697 upvotes 136 comments September 29, 2025
DeepSeek-V3.2 released

[https://huggingface.co/collections/deepseek-ai/deepseek-v32-68da2f317324c70047c28f66](https://huggingface.co/collections/deepseek-ai/deepseek-v32-68da2f317324c70047c28f66)

Open Reddit thread
DeepSeek V3.2 r/LocalLLaMA 582 upvotes 54 comments September 29, 2025
The reason why Deepseek V3.2 is so cheap

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.

Open Reddit thread
View more discussions →

Which model should you choose?

Use the summary below to decide which model better fits your workflow, budget, and feature requirements.

Best fit for

DeepSeek V3.2

DeepSeek V3.2 is a stronger fit for reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows, cost-efficient scale.

Best fit for

DeepSeek V4 Flash

DeepSeek V4 Flash is a stronger fit for long-context workloads, reasoning-heavy tasks, tool-augmented workflows.

Verdict

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.

FAQ

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.