Celeris-1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) scores 38.8 points higher (45.1 vs 6.3) but costs 7.4× as much to run the benchmark ($445 vs $60.0; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 45.1 | +615.9% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1… is 7.2× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $444.60 | +641.1% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1… is 7.4× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 14.55s | +1572.4% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1… is 1572.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Celeris-1: 615.9% more intelligence, 641.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 1572.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Celeris-1DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill