DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Mellum2.1 Thinking

Overall
64
vs
Overall
9

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 98 of the 99 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. Mellum2.1 Thinking spends 1.2× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
643m 35s
6K, 91% thinking10.3K, 63% thinking
91m 56s
Agents
464m 42s
6.1K, 82% thinking10.8K, 93% thinking
92m 3s
Structured Extraction
862m 8s
4.4K, 94% thinking8.3K, 51% thinking
51m 36s
Coding
514m 55s
9.7K, 95% thinking11.3K, 38% thinking
52m 11s
Grounded Answers
762m 17s
3.9K, 90% thinking7.3K, 62% thinking
131m 24s
Instruction Following
894m 24s
7.5K, 94% thinking17.3K, 63% thinking
283m 10s
Business Logic
814m 1s
7K, 97% thinking9K, 50% thinking
01m 39s
Security & permissions
693m 3s
4.4K, 81% thinking9.1K, 75% thinking
81m 40s
Diagnosis & investigation
172m 8s
3.2K, 67% thinking6.8K, 98% thinking
01m 15s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
30 tok/s
90 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
12.9 GB
Context
1M (better)
128K
Cost per run
$0.39 (better)
$2.46 est.
Cost per case
$0.0026 (better)
$0.016 est.
Time per case
3m 35s
1m 56s (better)
Quantization
FP8
Q8_0
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

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 FlashMellum2.1 Thinking
025507510050100150Perfect run649

Every test case

153 test cases

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

98 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash1 won by Mellum2.1 Thinking54 tied