Models

盲测显示 DeepSeek 在 95% 智能体任务中比肩 Carbon/Opus,价格低 40 倍

Why we picked it

做智能体开发的朋友可以看看这份盲测:DeepSeek 在 95% 的循环任务里打平 Carbon/Opus,但价格只有 1/40。如果你在跑短循环、高频调用的任务,换它能省不少钱;长循环场景还是要留个心眼,退化比较明显。

开发者 Bindu Reddy 发布盲测结果称,DeepSeek 在智能体循环任务中与 Carbon/Opus 达到 95% 的匹配度,而价格仅为其 1/40。这意味着在绝大多数常规智能体工作流中,选择 DeepSeek 可以大幅降低调用成本。

Body

根据该测试观察,DeepSeek 的短板出现在很长的智能体循环中:随着循环变长,其表现退化速度快于前沿模型。作者认为问题出在上下文压缩(compaction)环节,认为修复压缩机制后 DeepSeek 就能与这两款模型持平。

对开发者而言,这一结果指向一个务实的选型策略:短循环、高频调用的智能体任务可优先用低成本模型,长循环复杂任务仍需前沿模型兜底,混合路由可能是最优解。

Original · Bindu Reddy

In blind tests DeepSeek matches Carbon / Opus on 95% of agentic loops

It’s 40x cheaper and is way more attractive.

The only draw back is very long agentic loops where it seems to degrade faster than frontier models

Fixing compaction should bring it on par with them!

Industry Coordinates & Source Verification

This report is categorized under AITOP's "Models" desk, focusing on China's AI industry and domestic foundation model ecosystem. Within our cross-regional analytical framework, it directly maps to US-China foundation model benchmarks and commercialization comparison and AI developer toolchains, coding agents, and engineering workflows. Key entities and technical topics under continuous tracking include DeepSeek, 智能体, 推理模型, 开源模型.

Source attribution: curated from Bindu Reddy (@bindureddy).