DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
Pick deepseek-v4-pro-0813 for long-context text work: its 1000000-token window is nearly 4x the 256000 of kimi-k2.7-code, its 393216 max output is 12x the 32768 cap, and cache reads run $0.132 against $0.19, though its $1.32 input is about 1.4x the $0.95 charged by B. Pick kimi-k2.7-code when you need image or video input, which deepseek-v4-pro-0813 does not accept, or when cheap uncached prompts matter more than window size; note that thinking cannot be disabled on it. Output prices are close either way, at $3.96 versus $4.
Pricing
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) | Kimi K2.7 Code | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.32 | $0.95 | 1.4× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $3.96 | $4 | 0.99× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.132 | $0.19 | 0.69× |
| Cache write | no separate charge | — | — |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | always on | always on |
| Structured output | yes | — |
| 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 Pro (0813) | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-08-13 | 2026-06 |
| Context window | 1M | 256K |
| Max output | 393K | 33K |
| Thinking parameter | reasoning_effort |
|
| Accepted values | reasoning_effort
| type
keep
|
| 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 Pro (0813) · Kimi K2.7 Code
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a hidden chain-of-thought with many additional tokens before producing the final answer, which sharply increases compute consumption per request. Those extra reasoning tokens are billed at the same or higher rates, so total usage doubled even though the volume of final outputs stayed similar. We can control this by adjusting reasoning effort, setting token limits, or routing only complex requests through reasoning mode.
out 308 tok (+226 thinking) latency 5.1 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 — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 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 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` was initialized to `0` and only counted adjacent matching pairs, so a run of length `n` produced `n - 1` (or `0` for a single element) instead of `n`. The code also reset to `0` on a change, when the new run should start at length `1`. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` fixes both the single-element case and runs ending at the last index.
out 1315 tok (+1130 thinking) latency 16.9 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.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":null}
out 2155 tok (+2121 thinking) latency 26.0 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.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing cross-provider prompt caching in our API gateway. Send a prompt once, and the gateway stores its computed prefix across Anthropic, OpenAI, and other LLM providers. Subsequent requests with the same prompt hit the cache, cutting latency and token costs while keeping outputs consistent across routing decisions and provider failovers. Teams can route identical prompts between providers without reprocessing shared context or lengthy system instructions. How much could you save on repeated prompt prefixes? The cache respects provider-specific key formats, handles TTLs automatically, and works with streaming and batch requests. Enable it with one configuration flag—no changes to your application code. Available today on all plans. Monitor cache hit rates, token savings, and provider-specific performance metrics in the live dashboard.
out 2845 tok (+2694 thinking) latency 25.5 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-pro-0813",
# 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)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "deepseek-v4-pro-0813",
// model: "kimi-k2.7-code", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "deepseek-v4-pro-0813",
# "model": "kimi-k2.7-code", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "deepseek-v4-pro-0813",
// Model: "kimi-k2.7-code", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("deepseek-v4-pro-0813")
// .model("kimi-k2.7-code") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Kimi K2.7 Code is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.95 vs $1.32, 1.4× apart). Other rows may point the other way — the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) 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 model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) and Kimi K2.7 Code support prompt caching?
Yes — both bill cached 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.