DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-01.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) scores 0.8 points higher (18.5 vs 17.7) but costs 1.2× as much to run the benchmark ($310 vs $250; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Beam 1.0.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning) | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.5 | 17.7 | −4.3% Beam 1.0 is 4.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $310.24 | $249.83 | −19.5% Beam 1.0 is 19.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 3.92s | 8.00s | +104.1% Beam 1.0 is 104.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning): 4.3% less intelligence, 19.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 104.1% 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.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (Medium) scores 38.10 for $190.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Non-reasoning)Beam 1.0Today'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/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017-non-reasoning/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill