DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Muse Glimmer (High)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or Muse Glimmer (High) by Meta? 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 (Non-reasoning) scores 7.2 points higher (24.7 vs 17.5) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($239 vs $146; both mid-range class). Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Muse Glimmer (High).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Muse Glimmer (High) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.7 | 17.5 | −29.1% Muse Glimmer (High) is 29.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $238.91 | $145.77 | −39.0% Muse Glimmer (High) is 39.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 2.71s | 24.78s | +814.4% Muse Glimmer (High) is 814.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.30 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Muse Glimmer (High) vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning): 29.1% less intelligence, 39.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 814.4% 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.
- Muse Glimmer (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)Muse Glimmer (High)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/muse-glimmer · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/muse-glimmer?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill