The Right-Sized LLM Benchmark Cheapest LLM that's good enough.

DeepSeek V4 Flash at a glance

Good enough on 18/52 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 1 task. Best fit for: Structured Data & Fact Extraction, Infrastructure & Utility, Topic Organization & Clustering. Doesn't qualify on any: Fin

Provider
DeepSeek
Model name
deepseek-v4-flash
Cost mode:
Qualifies on
18 / 52 tasks (at 90% bar)
Best value on
1 tasks

Cost vs quality across all tasks

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Short Promotional Teaser Generation — quality 8.37, 7.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionAtomic Fact Claim Extraction — quality 7.43, 9.5x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Section Assignment — quality 8.02, 3.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionEngagement Opportunity Triage — quality 8.36, 4.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanguage Identification — quality 9.88, 2.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSocial Post Portfolio Selection — quality 8.78, 6.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionEvidence Grounded Claim Generation — quality 8.85, 3.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionVoice Profile Generation — quality 9.39, 8.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionBatch Text Translation — quality 8.53, 15.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Taxonomy Matching — quality 8.30, 7.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionContent To Image Prompt Generation — quality 8.45, 2.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionGenerated Content Relevance Scoring — quality 8.46, 9.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPromotional Message Generation — quality 8.16, 7.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionStructured Output Extraction — quality 9.54, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Section Prompt Generation — quality 8.20, 5.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Cluster Labeling — quality 8.12, 4.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionModel Specific Prompt Adaptation — quality 8.25, 8.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPersona Policy Eligibility Check — quality 9.22, 4.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.

Per-task breakdown

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Structured Output Extraction ★Structured Data & Fact Extraction98%RANKEDbest value
Language IdentificationRelevance, Classification & Matching98%RANKED2.3x
Content To Image Prompt GenerationInfrastructure & Utility94%RANKED2.8x
Topic Section AssignmentTopic Organization & Clustering92%HIGH3.6x
Evidence Grounded Claim Generation bestContent Summarization & Synthesis100%RANKED3.7x
Persona Policy Eligibility Check bestRelevance, Classification & Matching100%HIGH4.2x
Topic Cluster LabelingTopic Organization & Clustering91%HIGH4.4x
Engagement Opportunity TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching94%RANKED4.6x
Section Prompt GenerationInfrastructure & Utility96%HIGH5.9x
Social Post Portfolio Selection bestRelevance, Classification & Matching100%RANKED6.2x
Short Promotional Teaser GenerationSocial & Promotional Content95%HIGH7.1x
Topic Taxonomy MatchingRelevance, Classification & Matching98%RANKED7.1x
Promotional Message GenerationSocial & Promotional Content94%RANKED7.6x
Voice Profile GenerationLong-form Content Generation95%RANKED8.1x
Model Specific Prompt AdaptationInfrastructure & Utility94%MEDIUM8.7x
Atomic Fact Claim ExtractionStructured Data & Fact Extraction93%HIGH9.5x
Generated Content Relevance ScoringRelevance, Classification & Matching92%HIGH9.6x
Batch Text TranslationInfrastructure & Utility91%HIGH15x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.