DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs GPT-5.5 (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) by OpenAI? 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
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) scores 13.7 points higher (38.4 vs 24.7) but costs 22× as much to run the benchmark ($5294 vs $239; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 24.7, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when 24.7 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.7 | 38.4 | +55.5% GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) is 55.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $238.91 | $5,294.36 | +2116.0% GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) is 22× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 2.72s | 55.87s | +1954.0% GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) is 1954.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $5.00 / $30.0 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning): 55.5% more intelligence, 2116.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 1954.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) 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 (Non-reasoning)GPT-5.5 (Xhigh)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-non-reasoning/gpt-5-5 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/gpt-5-5?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill