DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Llama 4 Maverick
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or Llama 4 Maverick by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) scores 15.4 points higher (24.7 vs 9.3) but costs 5.4× as much to run the benchmark ($239 vs $44.0; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when you need intelligence above 9.3, and Llama 4 Maverick when 9.3 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Llama 4 Maverick | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.7 | 9.3 | −62.3% Llama 4 Maverick is 62.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $238.91 | $43.98 | −81.6% Llama 4 Maverick is 81.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 2.61s | 11.18s | +328.4% Llama 4 Maverick is 328.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.25 / $0.92 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Maverick vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning): 62.3% less intelligence, 81.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 328.4% 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.
- Llama 4 Maverick is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)Llama 4 MaverickToday'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/llama-4-maverick · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/llama-4-maverick?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill