Compare / Claude Haiku 4.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 87 results on 6 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
DeepSeekDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Claude Haiku 4.5 wins 1114 too close to callDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 wins 62
Of the 87 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 20 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-20-96eb40c3ec63). See also Anthropic vs DeepSeek, every model from both labs.
Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017? The short answer
Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 44 against 8) and costs less.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Haiku 4.5 8, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 44 (out of 100; how the score works).
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.006 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.0 times less).
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 45.1 against 16.9.
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is newer: released 17 Oct 2026, against 15 Oct 2025 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 does better for product listings, decks from an analysis, user surveys and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 does better for agents and tool use and reasoning and knowledge.
Head to head
8
Spring Prompt overall
44
16.9
Intelligence Index
45.1
$2.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.52
200,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $1.00 in · $5.00 out | $0.30 in · $1.20 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $2.00 | $0.52 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $2.00 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.006 | $0.002 |
| Cached input, per million | $0.10 cached input | $0.006 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 16.9 | 45.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 8 | 44 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | 212 |
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 15 Oct 2025 | 17 Oct 2026 (newer) |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Developer based in | the US | 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.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
23 of 24
21 of 24
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
20 of 24
12 of 24
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
12 of 13
5 of 13
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
23 of 24
11 of 24
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
95 of 168
22 of 168
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
131 of 202
22 of 202
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
88 of 189
not measured
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
118 of 153
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
19 of 27
21 of 27
From our research
- Claude Haiku 5.5 Is Far Better Than Haiku 4.5 at a Tenth of the Price. GPT-6 Luna Still Beats It at Business Work. 8 Oct 2026
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 review: better at analysis, much worse at sticking to the product data 19 Oct 2026
- Mercury 3 first look: very fast with thinking off, too slow with it on 20 Oct 2026
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash first look: careful with product data, unreliable on long jobs 19 Oct 2026
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 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per game · Bullet 60sUS dollars, lower is better 23 · 13 of 32 measured | $0.0163 | $0.0047low reasoning |
| Ladder Elo · Bullet 60sladder Elo, higher is better 18 · 27 of 32 measured | 445 | 147low reasoning |
| Games lost on time · Bullet 60s% of games, lower is better 14 · 29 of 32 measured | 25.0% | 87.5%low reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 8 · 4 of 24 measured | $0.0061 | $0.0015 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 23 · 19 of 24 measured | 1.8% | 21.4% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 21 · 21 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 9 · 7 of 24 measured | $0.0461 | $0.0255 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 20 · 12 of 24 measured | 702 | 1,145 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 17 · 14 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 11 of 24 measured | 17.5 | 41.4 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 9 of 24 measured | 30.9 | 65.3 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 11 of 24 measured | 7.3 | 38.3 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 5 of 13 measured | 572 | 1,221 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 4 of 12 measured | $0.0635 | $0.0373 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 4 of 13 measured | 56.8 | 90.2 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 122 · 16 of 249 measured | 16.9thinking reasoning | 45.1max reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 155 · 27 of 248 measured | 10.4%thinking reasoning | 43.3%max reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 70 · 16 of 118 measured | 0.0%thinking reasoning | 33.8%max reasoning |
Show all 87 results (69 more)
| Measure | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 |
|---|---|---|
| BulletBench measured by Spring Prompt · 2 results | ||
| Invalid moves · Bullet 60s% of moves, lower is better 26 · 1 of 32 measured | 0.3% | 0.0%low reasoning |
| Median move time · Bullet 60smilliseconds, lower is better 18 · 31 of 32 measured | 1.2 s | 3.3 slow reasoning |
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 28 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 1 · 19 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 22 of 24 measured | 4.2% | 2.4% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 24 · 19 of 24 measured | 22.6% | 1.2% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 18 of 24 measured | 44.6% | 3.6% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 21 · 20 of 24 measured | 94.4% | 95.3% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 22 · 19 of 24 measured | 93.9% | 94.8% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 23 · 18 of 24 measured | 90.6% | 94.9% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 10 · 10 of 24 measured | 93.7% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 24 · 13 of 24 measured | 6.2% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 20 · 5 of 24 measured | 8.9% | 3.6% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 7 of 24 measured | 6.6% | 2.4% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 23 · 19 of 24 measured | 12.5% | 40.5% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 23 · 21 of 24 measured | 3.0% | 8.3% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 5 · 3 of 24 measured | 8.10 | 6.70 |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 24 · 21 of 24 measured | 2.69 | 1.70 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 24 · 20 of 24 measured | 73.2% | 44.6% |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 24 · 22 of 24 measured | 5.32 | 4.01 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 23 of 24 measured | 91.7% | 85.7% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 24 · 13 of 24 measured | 48.2% | 17.9% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 24 · 21 of 24 measured | 51.2% | 22.0% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 22 · 2 of 24 measured | 7.7% | 0.6% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 22 · 3 of 24 measured | 6.6% | 1.2% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 20 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 20 · 9 of 24 measured | 47.6% | 68.5% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 19 · 19 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 1 of 24 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 20 · 14 of 24 measured | 30.6% | 53.3% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 12 · 20 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 83.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 12 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 9 of 24 measured | 50.0% | 16.7% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 16 of 24 measured | 66.7% | 66.7% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 4 · 7 of 24 measured | 51.7 | 73.0 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 17 · 11 of 24 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 24 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 23 · 15 of 24 measured | 8.7 | 20.2 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 24 · 10 of 24 measured | −$205,001 | $585,572 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 8 of 24 measured | $0.0298 | $0.0799 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 22 · 1 of 24 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 19 · 20 of 24 measured | 54.4 | 54.3 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 24 · 12 of 24 measured | −$0.21 | $0.44 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 12 · 5 of 13 measured | 22.3% | 60.2% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 3 of 13 measured | 66.7% | 11.1% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 1 of 13 measured | 55.6% | 0.0% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 12 · 1 of 13 measured | 63.7% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 7 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 4 of 13 measured | 64.9 | 90.9 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 3 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 1 of 13 measured | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 9 · 4 of 13 measured | 83.6 | 92.5 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 10 of 13 measured | 0.0% | 33.3% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 5 · 6 of 12 measured | 92.6 | 134 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 10 · 5 of 13 measured | 62.3% | 91.3% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 5 of 13 measured | 88.9% | 44.4% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 4 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 44.4% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 13 measured | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 3 of 13 measured | 44.4% | 11.1% |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 2 results | ||
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 87 · 19 of 239 measured | 74.3%thinking reasoning | 82.7%max reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 79 · 24 of 119 measured | 42.2%thinking reasoning | 55.9%max reasoning |
Compare them with other models
- Anthropic vs DeepSeekEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3Most intelligent at $1–3 per million tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Muse Spark 1.3Fastest with similar intelligence
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
Quick answers
Is Claude Haiku 4.5 better than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
Pick DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 44 against 8) and costs less.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is cheaper to run: $0.002 against $0.006 per product listing on CatalogBench (4.0 times less).
Which is better for product listings, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 21 of 24 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 23 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 12 of 24 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 20 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for user surveys, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 5 of 13 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 12 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 11 of 24 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 23 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ranks 22 of 168 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 95 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017: 1,048,576 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Run Claude Haiku 4.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.