DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 15.2 points higher (39.9 vs 24.7) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $239; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.7 | 39.9 | +61.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 61.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $238.91 | $2,632.05 | +1001.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 11× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 2.88s | 61.67s | +2041.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 2041.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning): 61.5% more intelligence, 1001.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 2041.3% 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill