DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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 5.3 points higher (45.1 vs 39.8) but costs 1.2× as much to run the benchmark ($445 vs $363; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 39.8 | −11.8% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 11.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $362.72 | −18.4% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 18.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.12s | 50.49s | +213.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 213.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 11.8% less intelligence, 18.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 213.2% 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.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill