DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or Kimi K3.1 Pro by Kimi? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 10.0 points higher (55.1 vs 45.1) but costs 7.0× as much to run the benchmark ($3117 vs $445; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Kimi K3.1 Pro when you need intelligence above 45.1, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when 45.1 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 55.1 | +22.2% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 22.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $3,117.31 | +601.1% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 7.0× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.12s | 49.55s | +207.4% Kimi K3.1 Pro is 207.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $10.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Kimi K3.1 Pro vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 22.2% more intelligence, 601.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 207.4% 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.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Kimi K3.1 ProToday'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/kimi-k3-1-pro · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/kimi-k3-1-pro?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill