新人 免费注册,送 10 次调用,最高 $1,免绑卡。

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Kimi K2.7 Code

vs

何时用哪一个

deepseek-v4.1-flash 是更便宜、上下文更长的选择:输入 $0.3 和输出 $1.2,而 kimi-k2.7-code 为 $0.95 和 $4,分别便宜约 3.2x 和 3.3x,同时具有 1000000-token 窗口(对比 256000)和 393216-token 的最大输出(大 12x)。当您的输入包含视频(kimi-k2.7-code 支持而 deepseek-v4.1-flash 不支持),且可以接受始终开启推理时(因为它的思考过程无法被禁用),请选择 kimi-k2.7-code。否则,DeepSeek 模型以更低的成本覆盖了相同的聊天、代码、推理、工具和图像输入领域,包括 $0.03 对比 $0.19 的缓存读取价格。

Benchmark 成绩

高于同侪均值无人分数更高DeepSeek V4.1 Flash16 / 194 / 19Kimi K2.7 Code1 / 50 / 5
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Kimi K2.7 Code 其他被测模型 同侪均值 无人分数更高
NL2Repo
64%
N/A
Cybergym
无人分数更高 88.1%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
90.9%
N/A
MCP-Atlas
N/A
76%
BabyVision with tools
89.6%
N/A

厂商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定价

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Kimi K2.7 Code Δ
输入 / 1M tokens $0.3 $0.95 0.32×
输出 / 1M tokens $1.2 $4 0.3×
缓存读取 / 1M tokens $0.03 $0.19 0.16×
缓存写入 不单独收费 - -

费率取自构建时的实时目录;每个模型页面均附有当前的费率卡。

它们的位置 — 以该计费单位计费的所有 69 个 聊天 模型的 每 1M token 的输入价格(对数刻度)

能力

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Kimi K2.7 Code
工具使用
思考控制 是 —— 厂商未公布调节参数 始终开启
提示词缓存 隐式(自动) 隐式(自动)
缓存生存时间 no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) 未公开
最小缓存前缀 未公开 未公开

规格

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Kimi K2.7 Code
输入模态 文本 图像 文本 图像 视频
输出模态 文本 文本
发布日期 2026-09-10 2026-06
上下文窗口 1M 256K
最大输出 393K 33K
思考参数 -
  • thinking.type
  • thinking.keep
允许的值 -
type
  • accepts only enabled
keep
  • accepts only all
默认值 - thinking on with Preserved Thinking on

规格转录自各供应商的文档;若供应商未发布某项数据,则直接省略该行,而非进行推断。 完整来源: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · Kimi K2.7 Code

单个 Prompt,两个模型 —— 通过网关实测

提示词 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 检查 恰好 3 句

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 通过 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning changed the unit economics: the model now spends extra billable tokens internally to “think” before producing the answer, and those reasoning tokens are charged like output tokens even though users never see them. That added token generation—plus longer contexts and occasional retries on harder prompts—roughly doubled our cost per request. We can control this by capping reasoning depth, routing only complex queries to reasoning models, and caching common prompts to bring the bill back down.

输出 423 tok (+327 思考) 延迟 14.6 s

Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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.

输出 259 tok (+174 思考) 延迟 5.4 s

指令遵循(恰好三句,可数)、受众适配(面向 CFO 的语气),以及下方 token 计量所暴露的隐藏思考计费缺口。

提示词 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. 检查 修复通过测试

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 通过 · 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` is counting equal adjacent pairs, not elements in the current run: every time `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`, the run length increases by one element, but the first element of the run was never counted, so all runs are undercounted by one. Also, `best` starts at `0`, so single-element inputs return `0` instead of `1`, and a one-element run ending at the last index is missed entirely.

输出 918 tok (+733 思考) 延迟 11.4 s

Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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.

输出 410 tok (+222 思考) 延迟 9.4 s

修复是否真的正确(可运行)、解释的信息密度,以及在一个边界明确的任务上的 token 效率。

提示词 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. 检查 合法 JSON,schema 精确

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 通过 · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}

输出 1707 tok (+1667 思考) 延迟 15.1 s

Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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" } ```

输出 721 tok (+663 思考) 延迟 13.2 s

schema 服从度(不臆造字段)、幻觉压力(guidance 明确被暂缓给出),以及结构化输出路径的差异。

提示词 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. 检查 120 词,0 个禁用词

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 通过 · 116 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Cache for our API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests and their responses across supported model providers, then serves cached results when a match is found. Teams can cut duplicate inference costs, reduce latency, and keep behavior consistent during provider failover. The cache works with configurable TTLs, per-route rules, and cache-key controls, so you decide what is reusable and what must stay fresh. Does your application send the same prompts to multiple providers? Now your gateway can answer many of those calls without another upstream request. Existing observability dashboards show hit rates, saved tokens, and estimated spend reduction. Enable it in the gateway console, set your policy, and start caching today.

输出 917 tok (+770 思考) 延迟 9.0 s

Kimi K2.7 Code 通过 · 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.

输出 2375 tok (+2235 思考) 延迟 38.6 s

约束服从度(字数预算、禁用词表、唯一的那句问句)、文风指纹,以及长度控制。

只需一行代码即可在它们之间切换

两个 ID 都包含在下方的每个选项卡中 — 高亮显示的两行是唯一的修改。相同的端点,相同的密钥,相同的请求结构。

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",
    # model="kimi-k2.7-code",  # 取消注释此行,注释上一行
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

获取 API 密钥 →

常见问题

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 哪个更便宜?

在 输入 / 1m tokens 方面,DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 更便宜($0.3 对比 $0.95,相差 3.2×)。其他行可能得出相反的结论——上方表格提供了完整信息,实际成本取决于你的组合使用情况。

我可以在不进行两次集成的情况下,对 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 进行 A/B 测试吗?

可以。两者均通过同一个兼容 OpenAI 的端点提供服务,并使用同一把 API 密钥——切换只需更改一行模型字符串,因此你可以将一部分流量路由到各个模型并直接比较账单。

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 和 Kimi K2.7 Code 支持提示词缓存吗?

是的 —— 两者对缓存读取的计费均低于其输入费率,因此热前缀工作负载的成本低于标价。准确的缓存读取行位于上方的定价表中。

相关对比

来自我们的实测研究