SmophyAI

Published daily · Next update 02:00 UTC

Real data comparison

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Ling-3.0-flash

On quality, DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 leads (51.8 vs 37.8). On price, Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper ($0.03 vs $0.11 per 1M). In real production usage, DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 is used more (rank #1 vs #14 of 291).

  • DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423
  • Ling-3.0-flash
Quality (Intelligence Index)51.8 / 37.8
Price ($/1M blended)$0.11 / $0.03
Average usage share12.91% / 2.05%
Coding index69.1 / 50.6
Agentic index48.4 / 29.3
Context window1,048,576 / 262,144
Quality per dollar460.4 pts/$ / 1200.0 pts/$

Usage share over time

23.98%17.99%11.99%6.00%0.00%Share of usageJul 5Jul 22Aug 8
  • DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423
  • Ling-3.0-flash

Frequently asked questions

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Ling-3.0-flash: which is better quality?

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 scores higher on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index (51.8 vs 37.8).

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Ling-3.0-flash: which is cheaper?

Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper at $0.03/1M vs $0.11/1M.

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 vs Ling-3.0-flash: which is used more?

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0423 has higher real OpenRouter usage share (rank #1 vs #14 of 291).

Source: OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings), as of August 9, 2026.

Benchmark scores: Artificial Analysis (artificialanalysis.ai) via OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings).

Methodology: smophy.ai/benchmark/methodology

Token counts originate from each provider's own tokenizer and are not directly comparable across providers.