An open-weight model from DeepSeek offering above-average intelligence and a large context window, but at a premium price point compared to its peers.
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) emerges as a noteworthy contender in the landscape of open-weight large language models. Developed by DeepSeek, this model distinguishes itself with a combination of strong intellectual capabilities, a massive 128,000-token context window, and broad availability across a diverse set of API providers. It is designed for complex text-based tasks, from long-form content creation to intricate reasoning and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) within its expansive context.
On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, DeepSeek R1 scores a respectable 44, placing it slightly above the average of 42 for comparable models in its class. This indicates a solid capacity for reasoning, instruction following, and knowledge recall. However, this intelligence comes with a notable characteristic: verbosity. During our evaluation, the model generated 72 million tokens, more than triple the class average of 22 million. This tendency to produce lengthy outputs is a critical factor for developers to manage, as it directly impacts token consumption and, consequently, operational costs.
The financial aspect of deploying DeepSeek R1 is a key consideration. With standard pricing at $1.35 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens, it sits firmly in the expensive tier relative to its open-weight counterparts, which average $0.57 and $2.10, respectively. The high cost of the intelligence evaluation, totaling $333.58, underscores the premium nature of this model. This makes the choice of API provider not just a matter of preference, but a strategic decision to balance performance with budget. Our analysis delves deep into the provider ecosystem to help you navigate this trade-off effectively.
This page provides a comprehensive benchmark analysis across nine different API provider endpoints, including major cloud platforms like Amazon Bedrock and Microsoft Azure, as well as specialized AI infrastructure providers like Together.ai, Deepinfra, and SambaNova. We examine critical performance metrics such as output speed, time-to-first-token (latency), and, most importantly, price. By understanding the unique performance profile of each provider, developers can select the optimal deployment path for DeepSeek R1 that aligns with their specific application needs, whether it's prioritizing real-time interactivity, maximum throughput, or cost efficiency.
44 (24 / 51)
N/A tokens/s
$1.35 / 1M tokens
$4.00 / 1M tokens
72M tokens
N/A seconds
| Spec | Details |
|---|---|
| Owner | DeepSeek |
| License | Open License (Commercial use permitted, but requires verification of the specific terms) |
| Context Window | 128,000 tokens |
| Input Modality | Text |
| Output Modality | Text |
| Model Type | Dense Transformer |
| Primary Use Cases | RAG, Long-form Content Generation, Complex Summarization, Chat |
| Benchmark Cost | $333.58 (to run the Intelligence Index) |
| Benchmark Providers | Amazon Bedrock, Microsoft Azure, Together.ai, Deepinfra, SambaNova, Novita, Hyperbolic |
| Provider Variants | Includes standard, Turbo, and quantized (FP4) versions from providers like Deepinfra and Novita. |
Choosing the right API provider for DeepSeek R1 is crucial for balancing performance and cost. The 'best' option depends entirely on your application's primary requirement: are you building a real-time chatbot that needs instant responses, a batch processing pipeline that needs maximum throughput, or a budget-conscious tool that must minimize every expense?
Our benchmarks reveal clear leaders for different priorities. The following recommendations are based on measured performance for output speed (tokens/second), latency (time-to-first-token), and blended price per million tokens.
| Priority | Pick | Why | Tradeoff to accept |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest Cost | Deepinfra | With a blended price of $1.13 per million tokens, it is the most cost-effective provider benchmarked, making it ideal for budget-sensitive projects. | Moderate output speed and latency; not the top performer for real-time needs. |
| Highest Speed | Together.ai | Delivers an impressive 292 tokens/second, making it the clear winner for applications requiring maximum generation throughput, like long-form content creation. | Higher cost than budget options and not the lowest latency. |
| Lowest Latency | Deepinfra | At 0.38 seconds time-to-first-token (TTFT), Deepinfra provides the most responsive experience, critical for interactive chatbots and user-facing tools. | Output speed is solid but significantly lower than the top-speed provider. |
| Balanced Performance | Amazon Bedrock | Offers a compelling mix of low latency (0.40s) and high output speed (191 t/s), making it a strong all-around choice for demanding applications. | It's a premium option, with a blended price of $2.36 that is more than double the cheapest provider. |
| Enterprise Choice | Microsoft Azure | Provides integration within the Azure ecosystem, offering enterprise-grade security, compliance, and support. A safe choice for large organizations. | Performance is middling (101 t/s) and pricing is not the most competitive compared to specialized providers. |
Note: Performance metrics and pricing are subject to change. These recommendations are based on data from January 2025. Blended price is a weighted average assuming a 1:2 input-to-output token ratio.
Theoretical metrics like tokens-per-second are useful, but how do they translate to real-world costs? To help you budget, we've estimated the cost of several common workloads using DeepSeek R1. These calculations are based on the most cost-effective provider, Deepinfra, with its pricing of $0.70 per 1M input tokens and $2.40 per 1M output tokens.
| Scenario | Input | Output | What it represents | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAG Document Q&A | 10,000 tokens | 500 tokens | Querying a chunk of a technical manual or legal document provided as context. | ~$0.0082 per query |
| Long-form Content Generation | 200 tokens | 4,000 tokens | Generating a blog post or marketing copy from a detailed prompt. | ~$0.0097 per article |
| Interactive Chatbot Turn | 3,000 tokens | 150 tokens | A single user-AI exchange in a conversation where history is maintained. | ~$0.0025 per turn |
| Code Generation & Explanation | 1,000 tokens | 1,500 tokens | Requesting a function and a detailed explanation of how it works. | ~$0.0043 per request |
| Meeting Summary | 20,000 tokens | 1,000 tokens | Summarizing a large transcript passed into the context window. | ~$0.0164 per summary |
The key takeaway is that input-heavy tasks, like RAG and summarization that utilize the large context window, drive costs up due to the relatively high input token price. While individual query costs seem small, they can accumulate rapidly in high-volume applications. The model's high verbosity also means output token counts can easily exceed estimates if not carefully controlled through prompting.
Given DeepSeek R1's premium pricing and high verbosity, actively managing costs is essential for sustainable deployment. Failing to implement cost-control strategies can lead to unexpectedly high bills, especially at scale. The following playbook outlines key tactics to optimize your spending while leveraging the model's powerful capabilities.
Your choice of API provider is the single most significant lever for cost and performance. Don't default to one provider for all use cases.
The 128k context window is a powerful feature but also a major cost driver. The high input token price means you pay a premium for every token you send.
This model's natural tendency is to be verbose. You must actively guide it to be concise to control output token costs.
max_tokens parameter: Always set a sensible max_tokens limit in your API call. This acts as a hard stop, preventing runaway generation and guaranteeing a cost ceiling for each call.DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is a large language model from the research organization DeepSeek. It is an "open-weight" model, meaning its parameters are publicly available for developers to use. It is characterized by its above-average intelligence score, a very large 128,000-token context window, and availability across many different API providers.
Compared to other open-weight models in its class, DeepSeek R1 is generally more intelligent (scoring 44 vs. an average of 42 on our index). However, it is also significantly more expensive, with input and output prices well above the average. Its 128k context window is also a key feature that sets it apart from many other models.
A 128,000-token context window allows the model to process and reference a very large amount of text in a single prompt. This is extremely useful for tasks such as:
However, using this large context is expensive due to the model's input token pricing.
Performance differences stem from the underlying hardware, software stack, and model optimization each provider uses. Factors include the type of GPUs (e.g., H100s, A100s), the efficiency of their inference engine (like vLLM or TensorRT-LLM), network infrastructure, and whether they are running a standard version of the model or a quantized one (e.g., FP4). This competition creates a market where users can trade cost for speed.
Yes, but your choice of provider is critical. For a real-time chatbot, you need low latency (time-to-first-token). Our benchmarks show that Deepinfra excels here with a TTFT of 0.38 seconds, making it a strong choice. Amazon Bedrock is also a good option with a 0.40s TTFT and faster output. Using a provider with high latency would result in a poor, laggy user experience.
The Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is a composite score based on a series of tests measuring a model's reasoning, instruction-following, and knowledge capabilities. A score of 44 places DeepSeek R1 in the upper half of its peer group, indicating it has a strong, reliable grasp of complex tasks compared to the average model, which scores 42. It is a capable model for intellectually demanding work.
High verbosity can be a trait of how a model was trained or fine-tuned. Some models are encouraged to provide detailed, explanatory answers. While this can be helpful, it drives up output token costs. You can manage this by using specific instructions in your prompt (e.g., "Be concise," "Answer in one paragraph") and by setting the max_tokens parameter in your API call to enforce a hard limit on the output length.