DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) by DeepSeek or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) 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
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) scores 8.6 points higher (34.8 vs 26.2) but costs 1.0× as much to run the benchmark ($1081 vs $1060; both premium class). Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 27B (Low).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.8 | 26.2 | −24.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 24.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,081.42 | $1,060.08 | −2.0% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 2.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.00s | 55.17s | +244.8% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 244.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.44 / $1.32 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max): 24.7% less intelligence, 2.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 244.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max)Qwen3.8 27B (Low)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-flash-vision/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-vision/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill