GPT-5.4 Nano vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: the absolute bottom-tier cost face-off
DeepSeek V4 Flash is much cheaper, especially on output costs. It is the optimal choice for high-volume, low-cost operations.
Ultra-low-cost utility endpoints comparison.
For extremely high-frequency, low-budget tasks, ultra-lightweight models are perfect. GPT-5.4 Nano and DeepSeek V4 Flash are leading options.
By TechCompare · Updated
Cost Comparison
Based on 100,000 input tokens (50% cached), 5,000 output tokens, and 100 requests.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | GPT-5.4 Nano | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input Cost (per M) | $0.20 | $0.14 (better on this spec) |
| Output Cost (per M) | $1.25 | $0.28 (better on this spec) |
| Cached Input (per M) | $0.02 | $0.0028 (better on this spec) |
| Batch Discount | 50% (better on this spec) | 0% |
How they differ
GPT-5.4 Nano is priced at $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens. DeepSeek V4 Flash costs just $0.14 per million input and $0.28 per million output, featuring a 98% caching discount.
Verdict
Flash wins every base row: $0.14/M input against $0.20 and $0.28/M output against $1.25, a 4.5x gap on output alone. The cache story is more lopsided at $0.0028/M versus $0.02/M. Nano's only lever is its 50% batch discount against Flash's none, but even at batch rates Nano's output stays above Flash's live output ($0.625/M vs $0.28/M). The deep discount requires exact-prefix prompts, so this verdict rewards disciplined prompt design.
Which should you pick?
Choose GPT-5.4 Nano
Ultra-budget OpenAI pipelines and rapid classification runs.
Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash
Extremely high-volume pipelines, text summaries, and low-cost databases.