deepseek-flash vs step-5-preview
Parameters, independent leaderboard coverage, real-task reports and open-weight availability are shown side by side; missing coverage is not a zero.
Parameters
| Comparison item | deepseek-flash | step-5-preview |
|---|---|---|
| Model Type | LLM | LLM |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | — |
| Maximum output | 384,000 tokens | — |
| Input/output modalities | text, image → text | — |
| Endpoint | openai · openai-response · anthropic | openai · anthropic · openai-response |
| Open weights | Available | Unavailable |
| License | MIT | Not yet published |
Leaderboard coverage
Every independent board covering either model is retained; an em dash means that board has not published a figure for that model.
Real-task reports
deepseek-flash
- RemakeBench Launch 005: four Flash models on 14 fixtures — Fourteen fixtures spanning game building, 3D scenes, CAD, drawing and robot control, run on Qwen 3.8 Flash, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GLM 5.3 Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash. Finding: No model won overall. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash delivered the best submitted Turbofan CAD result (three valid native solids, with a wrong-sign coupling and LP/HP interference) and did not pass the single-turn Rubik's Cube task. Limitation: Pass/fail labels are video judgments without a machine-readable validator, and single attempts do not establish reliability; the lab publishes no aggregate score or overall winner. Several DeepSeek clips reuse earlier records that keep V4 labels and the Vision exp setting; the two results quoted here are campaign runs added for this comparison.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Grok 4.7 on one game prompt — Build a playable browser game from a single prompt with Command Code's /design command. Finding: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scored 9/10 for $0.0089 with a playable one-shot game. MiMo-V2.6-Flash also scored 9/10 at $0.005; Grok 4.7 scored 8/10 at $0.20 and needed iterations. Limitation: One prompt rated by the author, whose profile lists work for Command Code, the tool that ran the test; there is no rubric and no repeated run.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash recreating two game menus — Recreate the Psychonauts 2 and Metroid Prime main menus as closely as possible to the originals. Finding: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash used 412k and 466k tokens, three to four times GLM 5.3 Flash's 134k and 111k, and the author judged GLM's menus clearly better on both games. Limitation: Which menu is closer to the original is the author's own judgement on two prompts, without a scoring rubric.
- Switching a coding project from GPT-6 Astra to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — Review an existing project, list its issues and fix them. Finding: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash found several issues, asked which to tackle first and began fixing them; Kimi's review still found problems, which were passed back to DeepSeek to correct. Limitation: One uncontrolled self-report. The author ran DeepSeek through WorkBuddy's free access, so the remark about spending nothing extra does not reflect API pricing.
- Step 5 Preview and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on a 3D arcade game — Build Katamari Tiny, a 3D arcade game, from a single prompt. Finding: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash used 26,898 tokens against Step 5 Preview's 39,830 and, in the author's view, was faster and produced the better game. Limitation: One prompt judged by an author who names DeepSeek V4.1 Flash as their default model; the post gives no timings or quality rubric.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-5.3-Flash on a Blender geometry task, run locally — Write a Blender script that builds a dodecahedron trapped inside a dodecahedron. Finding: Both models produced a correct mesh with zero intersections. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash took 20 min 15 s and 62,928 tokens at 51.8 tok/s, about a fifth of GLM-5.3-Flash's time and half its tokens, and its computed clearance matched the measured mesh (0.238); the author found GLM's picture nicer. Limitation: One local run per model on different hardware and precision: GLM ran as a third-party EXL3 quantisation on two DGX Sparks and DeepSeek as FP8 on four, so speed and token counts describe those builds, not the official weights or a hosted API.
- Three Flash models build the same koi pond locally — A koi pond build, run as a local head-to-head. Finding: All three finished cleanly with zero fixes. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash was fastest at 21 minutes and 53.3K tokens, a third of GLM-5.3-Flash's time, and the author ranked it first. Limitation: One local run per model; the post states neither the prompt nor the quantisation or runtime used.
- Step 5 Preview and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on one Three.js scene — A Three.js scene of giant red mesas in a desert, with long shadows and a huge empty sky. Finding: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's scene was more restrained but had clearly better ground and mesa textures and a smoother camera; Step 5 Preview added more atmosphere, a tracked sun, particle and dust effects and on-screen text. Limitation: One prompt judged by eye by the author; the post does not say how either model was accessed.
step-5-preview
- Step 5 Preview and GPT-5.6 Sol on a Blender-to-3D-print task — Model an 8 cm spring caterpillar in Blender from a reference image, then 3D-print it. Finding: Step 5 Preview took 54 min 40 s against GPT-5.6 Sol's 14 min 34 s but gave the model a flat base that printed cleanly; Sol's version stood on a few small feet and nearly failed with stringing. Limitation: The author took part in StepFun's early evaluation. In a second round that spelled out printability in the prompt, both models did well, so the gap appeared only when the prompt left it implicit.
- Step 5 Preview and Claude Fable 5.1 on one front-end prompt — Build a front-end page from a single prompt. Finding: Step 5 Preview finished in 10 minutes for about $0.50; Claude Fable 5.1 took 40 minutes and $17. The repeated Step 5 run came out almost the same. Limitation: One prompt; the post leaves the quality comparison to readers rather than scoring it, and the cost gap follows each vendor's list prices.
- Step 5 Preview and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on a 3D arcade game — Build Katamari Tiny, a 3D arcade game, from a single prompt. Finding: Step 5 Preview used 39,830 tokens against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's 26,898, and the author judged DeepSeek's game faster and better. Limitation: One prompt judged by an author who names DeepSeek V4.1 Flash as their default model; the post gives no timings or quality rubric.
- Step 5 Preview and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on one Three.js scene — A Three.js scene of giant red mesas in a desert, with long shadows and a huge empty sky. Finding: Step 5 Preview produced the richer scene, with better atmosphere, a tracked sun, more particle and dust effects and on-screen text; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's version was more restrained but had clearly better ground and mesa textures and a smoother camera. Limitation: One prompt judged by eye by the author; the post does not say how either model was accessed.