DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 11.5% less intelligence, 492.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 306.3% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 39.9 | −11.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 11.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $2,632.05 | +492.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 5.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 15.96s | 64.84s | +306.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 306.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill