DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Flint

Overall
56
vs
Overall
21

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is clearly better. It wins 68 of the 75 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. Flint spends 2.0× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
5626.0s
5.3K, 91% thinking10.9K, 90% thinking
211m 17s
Agents
5826.7s
3.3K, 71% thinking4.8K, 85% thinking
1447.7s
Structured Extraction
8117.2s
4.2K, 93% thinking10.9K, 87% thinking
291m 17s
Coding
4840.8s
9.4K, 95% thinking12K, 98% thinking
141m 19s
Grounded Answers
7119.8s
4.4K, 91% thinking8.7K, 93% thinking
2957.7s
Instruction Following
7625.6s
5.5K, 91% thinking22.2K, 93% thinking
352m 28s
Business Logic
6726.6s
6.6K, 97% thinking11.7K, 78% thinking
101m 20s
Security & permissions
4826.6s
4.7K, 87% thinking7.1K, 90% thinking
3552.6s
Diagnosis & investigation
020.2s
3.2K, 74% thinking7.3K, 99% thinking
057.0s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
243 tok/s (better)
149 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M (better)
256K
Cost per run
$0.75
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0049
Not measured
Time per case
26.0s (better)
1m 17s
Quantization
—
BF16
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Flint
0255075100501001505621

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

68 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10177 won by Flint78 tied