deepseek vs groq — AI API latency comparison
As of September 08, 2026, groq has lower edge latency (time-to-first-byte) than deepseek in 4 of 4 measured region(s). From South America (São Paulo), groq responds in 233 ms p50 vs 437 ms.
Is deepseek or groq faster in each region?
| Region | deepseek p50 TTFB | groq p50 TTFB | Faster |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asia (Tokyo) | 176 ms | 145 ms | groq |
| Europe (Germany) | 300 ms | 296 ms | groq |
| South America (São Paulo) | 437 ms | 233 ms | groq |
| US (Central) | 315 ms | 126 ms | groq |
Full details: deepseek by region · groq by region.
Does the answer change by region?
The answer flips depending on where you measure from. In South America (São Paulo) the gap is widest at 204 ms, while in Europe (Germany) it narrows to 4 ms.
This is why a single-location benchmark cannot answer “is deepseek or groq faster” for you. Pick the row that matches where your requests originate.
Does deepseek or groq have better uptime?
Over the last 24 hours groq answered more probes successfully than deepseek: 100% against 99.6% across 4 region(s).
| Provider | Probes succeeding | Worst region | there | Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deepseek | 99.6% | South America (São Paulo) | 98.6% | 1149 |
| groq | 100% | Asia (Tokyo) | 100% | 1150 |
Availability observed by our probes over the last 24 hours, not a contractual SLA. Providers publish their own SLA terms and their own status pages; this is an outside view of whether requests actually completed, which is the number a status page cannot give you about your own region. The worst region is shown next to the average because an average hides the one place where a share of your users sees a different service. Longer windows and all 4 regions: uptime comparison · confirmed outages: incidents.
What exactly is being compared?
Both providers are measured the same way, from the same probes, on the same schedule: a real connection is opened to each provider’s own API host and DNS, TCP, TLS and the first response byte are timed. Neither is measured through a gateway or aggregator, so the numbers reflect each provider’s own infrastructure. Figures are p50 and p95 over the last 24 hours; percentiles are nearest-rank, because a handful of outliers would distort an average.
What this comparison does not cover
This is edge latency — the time before the model starts working. It is the floor you pay on every request regardless of which model you call, and it is the part you cannot optimise away with a better prompt. It is not time-to-first-token, throughput, price or answer quality: those depend on the specific model, and comparing them across providers running different models would not be like-for-like. Measured time to first token (TTFT), with the model named next to every figure and the network share broken out, is on the time to first token page.
Method in full: methodology · Raw numbers under CC BY 4.0: JSON API · No provider pays for placement.