DeepSeek V4.1 Flash hands-on tests and comparisons

Artificial Analysis' new Intelligence Index v5, with more private test items, puts DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and GLM-5.3 at 32 points, 26 behind leader Claude Opus 5.5.

The ranking post puts Opus 5.5 at 58, GPT-6 Astra at 57 and GPT-6.1 Sol at 55, with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM-5.3 tied at 32, and adds a coding test judged by real repo maintainers.

A side-by-side test claims GPT-6.1 Terra Ultra finished in under 9 minutes with better quality, while DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Max took almost an hour.

A community workflow uses GPT-6.1 Sol to write specs and accept results while DeepSeek 1017 does the work, skipping second reviews to avoid rework and wasted tokens.

The author asked GPT 6.1 Terra, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, GPT 6.1 Sol and Muse Wonder for the same animation, praising Terra as fast, cheap and good.

For 1M input plus 1M output tokens, GPT-6.1 Terra charges $6 while DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs $0.75–1.5, with input from $0.15 and output from $0.60.

The poster pans GPT-6.1 Terra's benchmarks, citing AA Index (Terra 48/$0.40, Sol 52, Sonnet 5.5 56, DS Flash-1017 45/$0.26) and Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Terra 50.3, DS 42.3), calling its frontend unusable but its speed decent.

GPT-6.1 Terra costs $1.00 input and $5.00 output, 3.33x and 4.17x DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's $0.30 and $1.20.

In a same-prompt SVG animation test of a pelican riding a bike, the author finds GPT more detailed but DeepSeek better in motion logic and smoothness.

A price comparison puts Terra at $1 input and $5 output per million tokens versus DeepSeek Flash at $0.15–0.30 input and $0.60–1.20 output.

The author says Terra scores 50.3% on Terminal-Bench 4.0, below Sonnet 5.5, and its $5 output price is over 4x DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's $1.20.

On the same three.js interstellar black hole prompt, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash used 14.9M tokens over 34 minutes for $0.17, while GPT-6.1 Terra finished in 2.5 minutes with 0.81M tokens for $0.18.