DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) vs Granite 4.2 8B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) by DeepSeek or Granite 4.2 8B by IBM? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-04.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) scores 23.5 points higher (28.6 vs 5.1) but costs 8.2× as much to run the benchmark ($384 vs $46.9; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) when you need intelligence above 5.1, and Granite 4.2 8B when 5.1 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) | Granite 4.2 8B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 28.6 | 5.1 | −82.2% Granite 4.2 8B is 82.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $384.14 | $46.88 | −87.8% Granite 4.2 8B is 87.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.41s | 41.88s | +212.3% Granite 4.2 8B is 212.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.06 / $0.25 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 8B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High): 82.2% less intelligence, 87.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 212.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (High) scores 42.40 for $267.
- Granite 4.2 8B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) scores 18.60 for $39.6.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (High)Granite 4.2 8BToday'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/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-high/granite-4-2-8b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-high/granite-4-2-8b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill