DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.7 Plus by Alibaba? 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
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) scores 19.9 points higher (45.1 vs 25.2) but costs 1.0× as much to run the benchmark ($445 vs $428; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.7 Plus.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 25.2 | −44.1% Qwen3.7 Plus is 44.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $427.73 | −3.8% Qwen3.7 Plus is 3.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.22s | 47.00s | +189.8% Qwen3.7 Plus is 189.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 44.1% less intelligence, 3.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 189.8% 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.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Qwen3.7 PlusToday'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/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill