Explore more topics
Published model evaluations

Deepseek V4 Pro: trading task evaluations

See how deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro performed in 1 trading task evaluation, with exact version, measured results, dates and test inputs.

As of 2026-08-08

Jump to a section

TL;DR

Deepseek V4 Pro recorded a planning mean of 0.710 with standard error 0.064 in the August 8, 2026 study of 29 frozen conversations. Historical billing was $0.0142 per decision and median response time was 27.2 seconds. Its planning mean was near the leaders, while its bill and median latency exceeded Luna's. Close sample means do not establish a decisive quality advantage, and these timings describe planning decisions rather than complete research runs.

Exact tested ID
deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro
Published studies
1
Provider
deepseek

Planning models on 29 frozen conversations: compare the tested outputs

Historical planning-decision billing

Scale: 0 to 0.0229 USD per decision · zero baseline

29 saved conversations

  • Deepseek V4 Pro+0.0142 USD per decision
  • Muse Spark 1.1+0.0229 USD per decision

August 8, 2026 frozen-conversation study. Means of 0.710 ± 0.064 and 0.759 ± 0.079 do not establish a decisive quality advantage. Median latency was 27.2s and 9.6s respectively.

Show the table · 2 rows, 5 columns

Scroll sideways to compare all columns. Select a heading to sort.

deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro0.7100.064$0.014227.2s
meta/muse-spark-1.10.7590.079$0.02299.6s

16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table. Published 2026-08-08. Values retain their original units and grading scale.

deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro was tested on 2026-08-08. 16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table. Its row and the other published arm use the same task and measurement units.

What this version helps you choose

Its planning mean was near the leading means, while the recorded bill and median response time exceeded Luna’s.

Route a request and plan the work: follow the published task

A useful planner chooses the right kind of work before doing it. The complete customer conversations and system prompts remain private.

Step 1 of 2

Published task summary

An incoming request and its existing conversation.

What you should see

Choose whether to write a plan, call a catalog tool, ask for clarification or continue an existing agent.

Step 2 of 2

Read what came back

A routing decision and plan. Every model receives the same saved conversation; the test compares that decision before fresh research begins.

What you should see

Replay 29 frozen conversations across the model arms, then compare graded plan scores, billing and response time.

Planning models on 29 frozen conversations

For routing and planning, Deepseek V4 Pro recorded a mean score of 0.710 with standard error 0.064. Historical billing was $0.0142 per decision, and median response time was 27.2s. Compare that cost and response time with the other models in the same 29-conversation study; the mean alone does not establish a decisive quality advantage.

Show the table · 4 rows, 2 columns
Published metricValue
Score0.710
+/- SE0.064
$ / decision$0.0142
p5027.2s

Planning models on 29 frozen conversations: read these measurements

Read the complete rubric, sample and billing notes

16-model campaign, 29 frozen conversations; 14 model rows shown in the public table

Route an incoming request: write a plan, call a catalog tool, ask for clarification or continue an existing agent.

  1. Scoring

    Top planning means were close at this sample size. The source's paired comparison with Opus was inconclusive.

  2. Cost units

    Cost is provider-billed dollars per decision. Prefix reuse can make it differ from list price multiplied by every input token.

  3. Time units

    p50 is median latency in seconds, not the duration of complete research.

  4. Frozen conversation

    A saved input kept identical across model arms so their decisions can be compared.

  5. Standard error (SE)

    An estimate of uncertainty around the sample mean. A small mean difference needs more evidence than the ranking alone.

Continue exploring

Discussion

Sign in or create a free account to join the discussion.

No comments yet.

Aurora · AI research assistant

Try this in Aurora

Edit the request, then open it in Aurora. You choose when to send it.