DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 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
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) scores 0.3 points higher (45.4 vs 45.1) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $445; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) 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) | Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 45.1 | 45.4 | +0.7% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 0.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $444.60 | $4,934.79 | +1009.9% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 11× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.12s | 62.92s | +290.3% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 290.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max): 0.7% more intelligence, 1009.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 290.3% 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 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (Max)Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Today'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-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-1017/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill