BenchLeader

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Grok 4.6

Full profiles: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (DeepSeek) and Grok 4.6 (SpaceXAI): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 25 Oct 2026, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Grok 4.6 (medium) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 64.2 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±5.8 margin of error), and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) costs 5.7× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads. Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for coding (70 vs 62); pick Grok 4.6 for knowledge (74 vs 57).

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101770 vs 62 category score; Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) 33.8% vs 13.1%High
Agents & tool useGrok 4.674 vs 64 category score; GDP.pdf (AA) 17.8% vs 17.2%High
ReasoningDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101771 vs 64 category score; ARC-AGI-2 78.1% vs 61.3%Medium
KnowledgeGrok 4.674 vs 57 category score; AA-Omniscience 28 vs 4.7High
Long documentsEither66 vs 66 category score; AA-LCR 82.7% vs 81.0%Either
Lowest costDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.525 vs $3.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.023 vs $0.144–
Fastest first answerDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101711.4 s (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)) vs 25.5 s (Grok 4.6 (medium)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Grok 4.6 (medium) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 64.2, within the ±5.8 margin).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) is stronger in coding, composite, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium) is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) is 5.7× cheaper ($0.525 vs $3.00 per 1M blended).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) streams 2.5× faster (195 vs 78 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Grok 4.6
DeveloperDeepSeekSpaceXAI
Released17 Oct 202611 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,048,576500,000
Compared atDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
Open weightsYesNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$0.300 / $1.20 / $0.0060$2.00 / $6.00 / $0.500

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)Leader
Reasoning70.664.4DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Coding69.962.3DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Agents & tools63.573.5Grok 4.6
Maths61.8–not comparable
Knowledge57.174.1Grok 4.6
Multimodal63.7–not comparable
Long context66.465.6level
Composite80.077.4DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Where sources disagree

Across the 13 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 9, Grok 4.6 leads 3 and 1 is a tie. Every overall index that rates both puts DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 ahead.

Overall indexDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)Leader
BenchLeader Index64.064.2neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.245.142.8DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
Blended price per 1M tokens$0.525$3.00
Input / output per 1M$0.300 / $1.20$2.00 / $6.00
Cached input per 1M$0.0060$0.500
Price per task: chat reply$0.0005$0.0026
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.0043$0.028
Price per task: code edit$0.0036$0.021
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.023$0.144
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0008$0.0052
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$0.262$1.14
Output speed195 tok/s78 tok/s
Time to first answer11.4 s25.5 s
Time to a complete answer13.9 s31.9 s

Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) cost $0.262 and Grok 4.6 (medium) $1.14, because DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) used about 1.3× as many tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) scores 64.0 and takes 11 s to its first answer token. Grok 4.6 (medium) scores 64.2 and takes 25 s to its first answer token; Grok 4.6 (high) scores 62.9 in 25 s, Grok 4.6 (xhigh) scores 62.5 in 29 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

124 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader64.064.2
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader63.573.5
Coding scoreBenchLeader69.962.3
Composite scoreBenchLeader80.077.4
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader57.174.1
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.465.6
Maths scoreBenchLeader61.8–
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader63.7–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader70.664.4
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$0.525$3.00
Output speedBenchLeader195 tok/s78 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader11.4 s25.5 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,048,576 tokens500,000 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.2%94.0%†
SimpleBenchSimpleBench–75.9%†
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1482†
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.1%†91.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–90.5%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–93.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis43.3%42.1%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–94.7%†
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize93.5%87.5%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize78.1%61.3%
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize–2.1%†
CritPtArtificial Analysis24.0%17.7%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–30.6%†
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub46.0%33.0%†
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub49.0%34.0%†
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–48.5%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–97.3%†
ForecastBenchForecastBench–65.5%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–55.9%
WeirdMLWeirdML–67.3%†
FrontierCodeCognition–48.0%†
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1510†
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)16651617†
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench96.0%†89.1%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–76.8%†
Show all 124 benchmarks
MetricPublisherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Grok 4.6 (medium)
Coding
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis55.9%55.9%
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–88.2%†
IOIVals AI–47.6%†
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–95.6%†
Code MigrationVals AI44.2%44.6%†
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI67.5%–
ProgramBenchVals AI–1.0%†
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–14.8%†
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI87.7%76.2%†
DeepSWE v1.1Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–67.5%
CursorBenchCursor–36.1%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–1508.1†
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–25.3%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis33.8%13.1%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–84.3%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–72.1%†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis43.7%–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench–20.3%†
APEX-AgentsMercor–65.3%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–0.6†
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench50.9%†40.7%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench76.0%†64.0%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–57.0%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–78.3%†
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis62.3%–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–44.3%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–41.3%†
CyberBenchVals AI–67.7%†
Finance Agent v2Vals AI57.0%53.7%†
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI62.9%–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI14.2%–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI9.2%15.8%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI45.2%48.1%†
SkillsBenchVals AI–55.8%†
Tax Agent BenchVals AI44.4%33.1%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI31.8%17.2%†
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–11.4%†
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI–5.8%†
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs–9047.0†
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis66.6%63.1%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis17.2%17.8%
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–48.3%†
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis15701531†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis12.9%6.2%†
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis69.2%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis24.9%–
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis76.3%–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.2%66.0%†
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub46.3%31.7%†
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.4%97.8%†
ProofBenchVals AI–51.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–92.6%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1445†
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub42.5%49.3%†
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench79.5%†75.3%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench79.5%†84.5%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–73.9%†
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis4.728
MMLU-ProVals AI–89.4%†
LegalBenchVals AI–86.3%†
CorpFinVals AI–66.2%†
TaxEvalVals AI–71.1%†
BioMysteryBenchVals AI–72.2%†
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI61.8%62.7%†
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI69.2%–
MedCodeVals AI–44.7%†
MedScribeVals AI–86.5%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI–66.8%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–30.5%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–16.0%†
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis42.9%41.9%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis33.3%76.0%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–83.7%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–71.9%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1452†
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1456†
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1443†
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1448†
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1475†
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1263†
LiveBench DesignLiveBench83.4%†79.8%†
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis80.6%–
MortgageTaxVals AI–64.2%†
SAGEVals AI–28.9%†
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–33.2%†
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis82.7%81.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1461†
MLCRArtificial Analysis26.7%18.3%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–156.6†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench79.2%†74.9%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–78.0%†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis45.142.8
Vals IndexVals AI61.3–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI60.9%–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–25.5%†
Vals Science IndexVals AI–38.1%†
Vals Router IndexVals AI61.3%†–
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis56.8–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis44.4–

Data as of 2026-10-25. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 10 new results (MLCR, AA Cyber Index, CWE-Bench (AA)…).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): BenchLeader Index 63.1 → 63.9.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 11 new results (GPQA Diamond, FrontierMath Tiers 1–3, FrontierMath Tier 4…).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 new result (MLCR).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)); 2 score revisions.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 15 new results (AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2, GPQA Diamond (AA), Humanity's Last Exam (AA)…).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 score revision.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): 1 score revision; cost per task moved from 1.5 to 1.1 (24% down).
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): BenchLeader Index 64.8 → 64.3.
  • Grok 4.6 (medium): BenchLeader Index 65.5 → 64.8.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Grok 4.6: questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Grok 4.6?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Grok 4.6 (medium) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 64.2, within the ±5.8 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-25, so check the category scores for your use.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Grok 4.6, and will that change?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper today: $0.525 against $3.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Grok 4.6 for coding?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher in coding (70 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Grok 4.6 for agents and tool use?
Grok 4.6 scores higher in agentic tasks (74 vs 64 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 66). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts more context: 1,048,576 against 500,000 tokens for Grok 4.6.
Which has lower latency?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) answers first: 11.4 s against 25.5 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Which is faster, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Grok 4.6?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 streams faster: 195 against 78 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Grok 4.6?
Across the 13 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 9, Grok 4.6 leads 3 and 1 is a tie. Every overall index that rates both puts DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 ahead.
When was DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 released?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 was released on 17 Oct 2026.