DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Spark X2.6 4B

Overall
64
vs
Overall
15

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 90 of the 92 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. Spark X2.6 4B spends 1.3× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
643m 35s
6K, 91% thinking8.2K, 84% thinking
151m 3s
Agents
464m 42s
6.1K, 82% thinking11.5K, 97% thinking
141m 32s
Structured Extraction
862m 8s
4.4K, 94% thinking5.3K, 78% thinking
1039.5s
Coding
514m 55s
9.7K, 95% thinking9.1K, 48% thinking
41m 8s
Grounded Answers
762m 17s
3.9K, 90% thinking6.6K, 86% thinking
1050.2s
Instruction Following
894m 24s
7.5K, 94% thinking11.9K, 90% thinking
371m 29s
Business Logic
814m 1s
7K, 97% thinking4.9K, 86% thinking
1036.3s
Security & permissions
693m 3s
4.4K, 81% thinking7K, 94% thinking
3154.3s
Diagnosis & investigation
172m 8s
3.2K, 67% thinking11.6K, 98% thinking
01m 30s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
30 tok/s
136 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
RTX 5090, 32 GB
Memory at 32K
—
9.4 GB
Context
1M (better)
605K
Cost per run
$0.39 (better)
$1.61 est.
Cost per case
$0.0026 (better)
$0.011 est.
Time per case
3m 35s
1m 3s (better)
Quantization
FP8
BF16
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 FlashSpark X2.6 4B
0255075100501001506415

Every test case

153 test cases

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

90 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash2 won by Spark X2.6 4B61 tied