Head to head

Any two models from the board, on the same tasks and graders.
Side A
Profile
Side B
Profile
Overall
60

Wins 9 tasks, 56 test cases

vs
Overall
40

Wins 0 tasks, 2 test cases

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads by 20 points and wins 9 of 9 tasks.

Task by task

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash wins 9 of 9

Average score on each task, best build on each side. The higher score is highlighted. Hover a score for the test cases behind it.

TaskAB
Overall
60
40
Tool Calling
78
66
Structured Output
52
30
RAG / Retrieval QA
63
22
Context Recall
100
89
Coding
41
4
Reasoning & Math
39
32
Instruction Following
46
25
Classification
55
31
Summarization
70
58

The race

No lead changes

Score piled up over the 238 test cases both models ran, as a share of the suite's maximum. The dashed line is a perfect run.

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashDots3-Note Preview
025507510050100150200Perfect run5938

Every test case

238 test cases

One square per test case, in suite order. A square takes the color of the model that scored higher on it.

56 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash2 won by Dots3-Note Preview180 tied

Where it breaks

238 shared test cases

On the impossible tier, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passes 44% of test cases and Dots3-Note Preview passes 23%.

TierAB
Baseline
36 test cases
94%
86%
Hard
69 test cases
67%
38%
Impossible
133 test cases
44%
23%

Tiers come from the suite. Baseline is fair, hard is adversarial, and impossible is built so that nothing solves it. Each number is the share of test cases the model fully passed.

Thinking spend

Both models spend about the same on thinking per test case.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
3.2Ktokens
Per test case, 97% of it thinking
Dots3-Note Preview
4.5Ktokens
Per test case, 62% of it thinking
TaskAB
Tool Calling
3.7K84% thinking
8.8K52% thinking
Structured Output
2.3K99% thinking
2.9K49% thinking
RAG / Retrieval QA
2.8K100% thinking
3.4K58% thinking
Context Recall
59099% thinking
1.7K65% thinking
Coding
6.3K96% thinking
8K88% thinking
Reasoning & Math
5.4K100% thinking
6.2K57% thinking
Instruction Following
2.9K99% thinking
3.4K59% thinking
Classification
2.5K100% thinking
3.1K58% thinking
Summarization
1.7K99% thinking
2.5K61% thinking

Average output tokens per test case, and how much of it was thinking.

What you'd run

The build behind each score. The better value in each row is highlighted.

SpecAB
Speed
215 tok/s (better)
75 tok/s
Memory
—
—
Context
1M (better)
512K
Cost per run
$0.7017
$0 (better)
Quantization
—
—
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

Faster, smaller, cheaper and more context count as better. Quantization and harness only describe the builds.