Compare AI models: DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Muse Ember
- DeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeek
- Muse EmberMetaHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 100/100 | 100/100 | 39/100 | 81/100 | 0/100 | 68/100 |
| Muse Ember | 100/100 | 0/100 | 72/100 | 92/100 | 83/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
Overview
Author
Context length
1M
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text
Text, Image, Video, Pdf, Audio
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$0.90/ 1M
$0.10/ 1M
Output
$2.70/ 1M
$0.50/ 1M
Cached input
$0.03/ 1M
$0.004/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
400K
41K
Completed sessions
1,640,422
554,695
Token share
0.41%
0.16%
Tokens
5.8T-76%
2.2T+100%
SEP 17NOV 11
SEP 17NOV 11
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
57.3%28K user-weeks
Pending
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeDeepSeek V4 Pro vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructDeepSeek V4 Pro·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructNearby alternativeMuse Ember vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructMuse Ember·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructRelated comparisonDeepSeek V4 Pro vs Jamba MiniDeepSeek V4 Pro·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonMuse Ember vs Jamba MiniMuse Ember·Jamba Mini