Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 48 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Of the 48 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs DeepSeek, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash? The short answer
Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 56 against 48) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 48, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 56 (out of 100; how the score works).
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is cheaper to run: $0.006 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.2 times less).
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 45.4 against 39.5.
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash writes faster: 217 tokens a second against 37.
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is newer: released 10 Sep 2026, against 3 Aug 2026 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash does better for product listings.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $0.30 in · $1.20 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $0.52 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $0.11 (Decart, FP4) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.026 | $0.006 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.006 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | 39.5 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 48 | 56 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 37 | 217 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 | 10 Sep 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Developer based in | China | China |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 5 of 20 measured | $0.0256 | $0.0061 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 13 · 9 of 20 measured | 28.6% | 41.1% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 6 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 23.2% |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 32 of 387 measured | 1,482 | 1,474max reasoning |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 22 · 28 of 163 measured | 1,472 | 1,467max reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 16 · 22 of 380 measured | 1,484 | 1,479max reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 14 · 29 of 243 measured | 45.4 | 39.5max reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 24 · 44 of 242 measured | 43.1% | 39.2%max reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 18 of 112 measured | 38.9% | 26.8%max reasoning |
Show all 48 results (39 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 14 of 20 measured | 100.0% | 99.4% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 11 · 19 of 20 measured | 0.6% | 3.0% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 18 of 20 measured | 3.0% | 1.8% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 13 · 1 of 20 measured | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 18 · 11 of 20 measured | 94.2% | 96.7% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 19 · 14 of 20 measured | 93.6% | 96.2% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 16 · 8 of 20 measured | 93.3% | 96.9% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 20 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 17 of 20 measured | 3.6% | 0.6% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 19 · 3 of 20 measured | 90.3% | 94.4% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 15 · 16 of 20 measured | 2.7% | 3.1% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 4 · 4 of 20 measured | 3.6% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 8 of 20 measured | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 12 · 8 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 63.7% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 6 of 20 measured | 7.7% | 47.0% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 8 of 20 measured | 0.69 | 0.54 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 10 · 6 of 20 measured | 26.8% | 13.1% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 19 · 6 of 20 measured | 4.52 | 1.25 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 7 of 20 measured | 84.5% | 39.9% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 16 · 15 of 20 measured | 21.4% | 20.2% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 13 · 14 of 20 measured | 19.6% | 20.2% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 12 of 20 measured | 1.8% | 3.0% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 10 of 20 measured | 2.4% | 2.4% |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 8 results | ||
| Confirmed task success · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 8 of 48 measured | 0.05arena agent | 0.08max reasoning, arena agent |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 17 · 49 of 385 measured | 1,468 | 1,440max reasoning |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 18 of 338 measured | 1,513 | 1,517max reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 25 · 18 of 387 measured | 1,474 | 1,479max reasoning |
| Praise over complaint · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 23 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | 0.02max reasoning, arena agent |
| Steerability · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 18 · 24 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | 0.01max reasoning, arena agent |
| Tool grounding · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 43 · 16 of 48 measured | -0.01arena agent | 0.00max reasoning, arena agent |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 18 · 37 of 386 measured | 1,472 | 1,454max reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 35 · 6 of 233 measured | 80.3% | 84.0%max reasoning |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 71 · 9 of 74 measured | 37.0 | 217max reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 36 · 38 of 113 measured | 52.1% | 51.9%max reasoning |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 74 · 21 of 74 measured | 55.8 | 0.85no reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Alibaba vs DeepSeekEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5Fastest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 56 against 48) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is cheaper to run: $0.006 against $0.026 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.2 times less).
Which is faster, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash writes about 217 tokens a second on its usual API, against 37 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902) (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ranks 7 of 20 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 17 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 7 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 21 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 17 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 35 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 16 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 28 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.