DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) vs Muse Glimmer (High)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or Muse Glimmer (High) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-31.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) scores 12.2 points higher (18.5 vs 6.3) but costs 1.7× as much to run the benchmark ($310 vs $182; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Muse Glimmer (High).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) | Muse Glimmer (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.5 | 6.3 | −65.9% Muse Glimmer (High) is 65.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $310.24 | $181.95 | −41.4% Muse Glimmer (High) is 41.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 4.11s | 23.99s | +483.7% Muse Glimmer (High) is 483.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Muse Glimmer (High) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning): 65.9% less intelligence, 41.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 483.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (High) scores 42.30 for $267.
- Muse Glimmer (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) scores 29.60 for $121.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning)Muse Glimmer (High)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/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-non-reasoning/muse-glimmer · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-non-reasoning/muse-glimmer?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill