New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) vs Kimi K2.7 Code

vs

Which one, when

deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017 is the cheaper, roomier option: $0.3 input and $1.2 output against $0.95 and $4 for kimi-k2.7-code (roughly 3.2x and 3.3x more), with a 1000000-token context versus 256000 and up to 393216 output tokens versus 32768, plus $0.006 cache reads against $0.19. Pick kimi-k2.7-code when you need video as an input modality, which the DeepSeek model does not accept, and can live with reasoning that cannot be turned off. For long-context text and image work, bulk drafting, or cache-heavy pipelines, the 2026-10-17 DeepSeek model is the economical default.

Benchmarks

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017): the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageKimi K2.7 Code1 / 5
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) Kimi K2.7 Code other models measured peer average ★ no peer scored higher
MLS-Bench-Lite
N/A
35.1%
MCP-Atlas
N/A
76%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Moonshot OpenAI Z.ai

Pricing

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) Kimi K2.7 Code Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.3 $0.95 0.32×
Output / 1M tokens $1.2 $4 0.3×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.006 $0.19 0.032×
Cache write no separate charge - -

Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.

Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 79 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) Kimi K2.7 Code
Tool calling yes yes
Thinking control yes (vendor dial not published) always on
Prompt caching implicit (automatic) implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) not published
Minimum cached prefix not published not published

Specs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) Kimi K2.7 Code
Input modalities text image text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-10-17 2026-06
Context window 1M 256K
Max output 393K 33K
Thinking parameter -
  • thinking.type
  • thinking.keep
Accepted values -
type
  • accepts only enabled
keep
  • accepts only all
Default - thinking on with Preserved Thinking on

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) · Kimi K2.7 Code

One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning caused each request to generate additional internal reasoning tokens, which are billed like output tokens and can be several times longer than the final answer. Those extra tokens raise cost per call, and longer responses plus occasional retries pushed total usage to roughly double. We can control this with reasoning-effort limits, token budgets, caching, and spend monitoring by use case.

out 253 tok (+178 thinking) latency 5.4 s

Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning mode causes the model to generate an internal chain-of-thought before producing each answer, and that hidden reasoning text is billed like any other output. Those extra reasoning tokens typically add up to much more than the final response itself, so every API call now costs significantly more than before. Because our overall usage volume did not change, the doubled bill reflects that each query consumes roughly twice as many billable tokens.

out 259 tok (+174 thinking) latency 5.4 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` starts at `0` and is incremented only when two adjacent items match, so it counts equal adjacent pairs rather than run length; a run of length `k` is recorded as `k - 1`. Consequently, a single-element input returns `0`, and a run ending at the last index—especially a one-element final run—is undercounted or never counted. The fix initializes every run to length `1`, increments on a match, resets to `1` on a mismatch, updates `best` each iteration, and handles the empty input separately.

out 1300 tok (+1095 thinking) latency 11.8 s

Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` The bug is that the function counts *transitions* between equal neighbors instead of counting the items themselves, so a single-element list never enters the loop and returns `0` instead of `1`. Likewise, resetting `cur` to `0` on a mismatch forgets the current item that starts a new run, which causes runs that end at the last index to be undercounted. Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` and resetting `cur` to `1` fixes both issues.

out 410 tok (+222 thinking) latency 9.4 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}

out 1375 tok (+1337 thinking) latency 12.2 s

Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "withheld pending the Q4 close" } ```

out 721 tok (+663 thinking) latency 13.2 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we’re introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Cache in the API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests once and serves cached responses across supported model providers, reducing duplicate calls, latency, and spend. Teams can set cache keys by model, temperature, system prompt, and custom metadata, then choose TTLs per route or workspace. The gateway handles provider fallback while keeping cached results consistent with your policy. Is your team paying twice for the same prompt? Cross-Provider Prompt Cache helps you answer that. Configure it in the gateway dashboard, inspect hit rates by provider, and invalidate entries on demand. Existing gateway routes need no code changes; enable the feature and define your caching rules. Cross-Provider Prompt Cache is available for all API gateway customers.

out 2487 tok (+2335 thinking) latency 17.1 s

Kimi K2.7 Code passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We're introducing Prompt Cache for our API Gateway, a new capability that stores prompt responses across multiple AI providers. By caching replies, you reduce redundant calls, lower latency, and cut costs without changing how you build. Teams using several model providers can now reuse identical prompt results instantly, keeping traffic consistent and budgets predictable. Responses are keyed by provider, model, and exact prompt, so you always get the right result. Configure TTL, hit thresholds, and eviction rules from a single dashboard. It fits into your existing routing and requires no code changes. Setup takes minutes and works with your current endpoints. Want to see how much latency and spend you can trim? Check the docs to enable Prompt Cache today.

out 2375 tok (+2235 thinking) latency 38.6 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017",
    # model="kimi-k2.7-code",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) or Kimi K2.7 Code?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.3 vs $0.95, 3.2× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) against Kimi K2.7 Code without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (1017) and Kimi K2.7 Code support prompt caching?

Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies