Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Depends on your budget
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallba… scores 22.1 points higher (46.8 vs 24.7) but costs 4.3× as much to run the benchmark ($1027 vs $239; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallba… when you need intelligence above 24.7, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when 24.7 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 24.7 | −47.2% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 47.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,027.40 | $238.91 | −76.7% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 76.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.86s | 2.88s | −82.9% DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (… is 82.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 47.2% less intelligence, 76.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 82.9% faster end-to-end.
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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.
Compare something else
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-high/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-high/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill