DeepSeek V4 Pro vs MiniMax M3
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
Both share a 1,000,000-token context window, chat/code/reasoning/tools, and the option to disable thinking, so the split comes down to price and inputs: minimax-m3 takes text, image and video, adds a long-context flag, allows 524288 output tokens, and costs $0.3 in / $1.2 out versus $1.608 / $3.216 for deepseek-v4-pro, roughly 5.4x cheaper on input and 2.7x on output. Pick minimax-m3 for multimodal prompts, longer generations, or cost-sensitive volume; pick deepseek-v4-pro for text-only work where its $0.0134 cache reads (about 4.5x cheaper than $0.06) dominate the bill.
Pricing
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $1.608 | $0.3 | 5.4× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $3.216 | $1.2 | 2.7× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.0134 | $0.06 | 0.22× |
| 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)
Capabilities
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | 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 | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-04-24 | 2026-06-01 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 393K | 524K |
| Thinking parameter |
|
|
| Accepted values | thinking.type
reasoning_effort
| thinking.type
reasoning_split
|
| Default | enabled, with reasoning_effort high some complex agent requests are automatically set to max | 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 · MiniMax M3
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
DeepSeek V4 Pro passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a lengthy internal chain‑of‑thought before it delivers a visible answer, and we are billed for every one of those hidden reasoning tokens just as we are for the final output. In most interactions, the volume of these unseen tokens at least equals the visible response, effectively doubling the total tokens consumed per query. That doubled token consumption translates directly into a doubled per‑query cost, which is why our overall LLM bill doubled.
out 641 tok (+545 thinking) latency 11.5 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.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 ``` **Explanation:** The bug stems from initializing `cur = 0` and only incrementing it when two adjacent elements match, which counts the number of *additional* equal elements rather than the actual run length (which is `cur + 1`). As a result, the returned `best` is always one less than the true longest run—most obviously returning 0 for a single-element list instead of 1. […]
out 2418 tok (+2131 thinking) latency 35.6 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.
DeepSeek V4 Pro passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": null }
out 1204 tok (+1153 thinking) latency 19.9 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.
DeepSeek V4 Pro no answer to grade · no answer text within 16,384 tokens (all of it went to thinking)
The model returned no answer text — the whole token budget went to hidden thinking.
out 8193 tok (+8192 thinking) latency 106.2 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",
# 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)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",
// model: "minimax-m3", // 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",
# "model": "minimax-m3", # 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",
// Model: "minimax-m3", // 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")
// .model("minimax-m3") // 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 or MiniMax M3?
MiniMax M3 is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.3 vs $1.608, 5.4× 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 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 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.