DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Granite 4.2 3B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or Granite 4.2 3B by IBM? 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 1017 (Max) scores 36.0 points higher (45.1 vs 9.1) but costs 30× as much to run the benchmark ($445 vs $14.9; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | Granite 4.2 3B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 9.1 | −79.8% Granite 4.2 3B is 79.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $14.91 | −96.6% Granite 4.2 3B is 96.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 14.55s | 35.30s | +142.6% Granite 4.2 3B is 142.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.03 / $0.12 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Granite 4.2 3B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 79.8% less intelligence, 96.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 142.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Granite 4.2 3B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Granite 4.2 3BToday'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/granite-4-2-3b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/granite-4-2-3b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill