Celeris-1 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) 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 (Non-reasoning) scores 18.4 points higher (24.7 vs 6.3) but costs 4.0× as much to run the benchmark ($239 vs $60.0; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 24.7 | +292.1% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 3.9× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $238.91 | +298.2% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 4.0× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 2.61s | +200.0% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 200.0% 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 (Non-reasoning) vs Celeris-1: 292.1% more intelligence, 298.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 200.0% 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 (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Celeris-1DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)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-non-reasoning · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill