DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) by DeepSeek or Llama 4 Scout 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 (Max) scores 33.0 points higher (39.5 vs 6.5) but costs 9.1× as much to run the benchmark ($672 vs $73.6; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.5 | 6.5 | −83.5% Llama 4 Scout is 83.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $671.96 | $73.56 | −89.1% Llama 4 Scout is 89.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 15.00s | 4.99s | −66.7% Llama 4 Scout is 66.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.29 / $1.20 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max): 83.5% less intelligence, 89.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 66.7% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max)Llama 4 ScoutToday'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/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill