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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) vs MiniMax M3

vs

Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table

Both share a 1,000,000-token context and cover chat, code, reasoning and tools, so the split is price and inputs: minimax-m3 costs $0.3 in and $1.2 out against $1.32 and $3.96 for deepseek-v4-pro-0813, making the DeepSeek model 4.4x the input rate and 3.3x the output rate. Pick minimax-m3 for cheap high-volume work, for image or video input, for its larger 524288-token max output, or when you want thinking switched off. Pick deepseek-v4-pro-0813 when you specifically want the newer 2026-08-13 text-only model and can absorb the higher rate card.

Pricing

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) MiniMax M3 Δ
Input / 1M tokens $1.32 $0.3 4.4×
Output / 1M tokens $3.96 $1.2 3.3×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.132 $0.06 2.2×
Cache write no separate charge 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)

$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) MiniMax M3
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control always on configurable
Structured output yes
Prompt caching implicit (automatic) implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) not published
Minimum cached prefix not published 512 tokens

Specs

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) MiniMax M3
Input modalities text text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-08-13 2026-06-01
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 393K 524K
Thinking parameter reasoning_effort
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_split
Accepted values
reasoning_effort
  • the model card documents low
  • high
  • max
thinking.type
  • adaptive
  • disabled
reasoning_split
  • boolean
Default adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps

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) · MiniMax M3

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 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 3 sentences

Reasoning-enabled models deliberately produce extensive internal "chain-of-thought" tokens before answering, often consuming 5–10x more tokens per query than a standard model. Because LLM providers bill per token for both that reasoning trace and the final response, your cost-per-query rises proportionally—and that multiplier is the primary driver of the doubled bill. The right response isn't to disable reasoning, but to route only genuinely complex queries to it while keeping routine traffic on the cheaper standard tier, which typically recovers 60–80% of the cost without sacrificing quality where it matters.

out 665 tok (+548 thinking) latency 5.7 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences — 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 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 8/8 cases

The bug is in the loop bound: `range(1, len(xs))` iterates from index 1 up to but not including `len(xs) - 1`... wait, actually it goes up to `len(xs) - 1`, so the last index is included. The real problems are two: 1. **Starting `best` and `cur` at 0** and iterating from index 1 means a single-element list (`len(xs) == 1`) never enters the loop, so the function returns `0` instead of `1`. The fix is to either seed `best = cur = 1` when `xs` is non-empty, or include index 0 in the loop logic. 2. **Missing the final run**: the function only updates `best` *inside* the loop when it finds a continuation. If the longest run ends at the very last element, the loop body never gets to compare it after the increment — actually it does, but only if the run is longer than the previous `best`. […]

out 464 tok latency 7.9 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 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ```

out 2212 tok (+2161 thinking) latency 23.3 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 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

MiniMax M3 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing PromptCache, our new API gateway feature that caches prompts across multiple LLM providers. Developers can store prompt-completion pairs centrally, reducing redundant inference calls and lowering costs without sacrificing quality. How will your workflow change when repeated requests resolve instantly from a shared cache layer? The gateway intercepts outgoing requests, checks for matching prompt fingerprints, and serves previously generated completions when available, falling back to the original provider on misses. Compatible with OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere, and custom endpoints, PromptCache integrates with existing routing rules and supports TTL, versioning, and per-tenant namespaces. Teams now gain predictable latency, reduced token spend, and improved throughput during traffic spikes today. […]

out 3256 tok (+2892 thinking) latency 21.5 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="minimax-m3",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get an API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.3 vs $1.32, 4.4× 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 MiniMax M3 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 MiniMax M3 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.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies