Meta Llama 4 Maverick vs DeepSeek V4 Flash

Both are low-cost large-context options; Llama 4 Maverick adds vision, while DeepSeek V4 Flash is text-only with lower output pricing.

Quick verdict

Llama 4 Maverick is the better low-cost choice when image input matters. DeepSeek V4 Flash is the better pure-text batch choice when output cost dominates.

Side-by-side comparison

FieldMeta Llama 4 MaverickDeepSeek V4 Flash
ProviderMetaDeepSeek
Context window1.05M tokens1.31M tokens
Input / 1M$0.200$0.065
Output / 1M$0.696$0.180
ModalitiesText, VisionText
Best forBudget, Long Context, MultimodalBudget, Long Context

Cost estimates

WorkloadInputOutputMeta Llama 4 MaverickDeepSeek V4 Flash
Quick test20,0005,000$0.007$0.002
Product chat month500,000125,000$0.187$0.055
Document batch5,000,0001,000,000$1.70$0.505

Estimates use list input/output prices and exclude cache discounts, provider surcharges and tool fees.

Choose Meta Llama 4 Maverick if

  • You need image input at a low price
  • You want a large-context open-weight-style option
  • Your benchmark shows strong enough quality for the task
View Meta Llama 4 Maverick on OpenRouter

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash if

  • Your workload is text-only
  • You process very large volumes of documents
  • Output token cost is the main constraint
View DeepSeek V4 Flash on OpenRouter

FAQ

Is Meta Llama 4 Maverick cheaper than DeepSeek V4 Flash?

Meta Llama 4 Maverick costs $0.200 input and $0.696 output per 1M tokens. DeepSeek V4 Flash costs $0.065 input and $0.180 output per 1M tokens.

Which model has the larger context window?

Meta Llama 4 Maverick offers 1.05M tokens; DeepSeek V4 Flash offers 1.31M tokens. Provider-specific limits can vary by route.

Which one should I choose?

Llama 4 Maverick is the better low-cost choice when image input matters. DeepSeek V4 Flash is the better pure-text batch choice when output cost dominates.

Pricing and context data are based on a 2026-09-05 snapshot. Provider limits and pricing can change; verify on OpenRouter before production.