BenchLeader

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Spark 1.3

Full profiles: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (DeepSeek) and Muse Spark 1.3 (Meta): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 7 sources

As of 24 Oct 2026, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 67.1 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±5.9 margin of error), and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) costs 3.8× less, which makes it the better buy for most workloads. Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for coding (70 vs 65); pick Muse Spark 1.3 for knowledge (73 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 65 category score; Arena WebDev 1664 vs 1657Medium
Agents & tool useMuse Spark 1.366 vs 63 category score; Finance Agent v2 60.0% vs 57.0%Medium
MathsMuse Spark 1.363 vs 62 category score; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 74.0% vs 71.2%Medium
ReasoningMuse Spark 1.377 vs 71 category score; CritPt 24.9% vs 24.0%Medium
KnowledgeMuse Spark 1.373 vs 57 category score; AA-Omniscience 25 vs 4.7High
Long documentsEither66 vs 67 category score; AA-LCR 82.7% vs 83.0%Either
Images and other mediaMuse Spark 1.366 vs 64 category scoreMedium
Chat quality (human preference)–Only Muse Spark 1.3 has an Arena rating (69 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.525 vs $2.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.023 vs $0.092–
Fastest first answerDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101711.2 s (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)) vs 90.1 s (Muse Spark 1.3 (max)) 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 Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 67.1, within the ±5.9 margin).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) is stronger in coding.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, composite, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning, human preference.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) is 3.8× cheaper ($0.525 vs $2.00 per 1M blended).
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) streams 1.7× faster (198 vs 116 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Muse Spark 1.3
DeveloperDeepSeekMeta
Released17 Oct 20262 Sept 2026
Context window (tokens)1,048,5761,048,576
Compared atDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Open weightsYesNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$0.300 / $1.20 / $0.0060$1.25 / $4.25 / $0.150

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)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
Reasoning70.677.4Muse Spark 1.3
Coding70.164.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Agents & tools63.065.6Muse Spark 1.3
Maths61.863.4Muse Spark 1.3
Knowledge57.172.8Muse Spark 1.3
Human preference–69.1not comparable
Multimodal63.765.7Muse Spark 1.3
Long context66.466.6level
Composite80.083.3Muse Spark 1.3

Where sources disagree

Across the 27 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 11, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 15 and 1 is a tie. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Spark 1.3 ahead.

Overall indexDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index64.067.1neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.245.148.1Muse Spark 1.3

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)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$0.525$2.00
Input / output per 1M$0.300 / $1.20$1.25 / $4.25
Cached input per 1M$0.0060$0.150
Price per task: chat reply$0.0005$0.0018
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.0043$0.018
Price per task: code edit$0.0036$0.014
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.023$0.092
Price per task: structured extraction$0.0008$0.0034
Cost to run a full benchmark suite$0.262$1.60
Output speed198 tok/s116 tok/s
Time to first answer11.2 s90.1 s
Time to a complete answer13.7 s94.4 s

Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) cost $0.262 and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) $1.60, because Muse Spark 1.3 (max) used about 1.6× 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. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) scores 67.1 and takes 90 s to its first answer token; Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) scores 64.9 in 30 s, Muse Spark 1.3 scores 59.8 in 3 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

109 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)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader64.067.1
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader63.065.6
Coding scoreBenchLeader70.164.5
Composite scoreBenchLeader80.083.3
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader57.172.8
Long context scoreBenchLeader66.466.6
Maths scoreBenchLeader61.863.4
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader63.765.7
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader70.677.4
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–69.1
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$0.525$2.00
Output speedBenchLeader198 tok/s116 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader11.2 s90.1 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,048,576 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub93.2%–
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)–1517
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench89.1%†89.7%†
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench–89.7%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–93.5%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis43.3%48.7%
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize93.5%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize78.1%–
CritPtArtificial Analysis24.0%24.9%
MysteryMechanismVals AI–36.0%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub46.0%37.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub49.0%25.0%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–53.9%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–96.5%†
BTF-3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–14.1%†
Coding
SciCodeSciCode–58.8%
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)–1536
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)16641657
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench96.0%†90.2%†
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench–81.1%†
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis55.9%58.8%
IOIVals AI–56.6%
Code MigrationVals AI44.2%47.4%
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI67.5%–
ProgramBenchVals AI–2.5%
Show all 109 benchmarks
MetricPublisherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max)Muse Spark 1.3 (max)
Coding
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI–43.1%
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI–20.5%
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI87.7%85.9%
CursorBenchCursor–41.6%
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–1688.3†
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–25.8%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis33.8%33.3%
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–84.3%
Startrise FrontendStartrise–74.7%†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis43.7%40.6%
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench–14.6%†
APEX-AgentsMercor–47.6%
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)–3.4
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench50.9%†40.4%†
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench76.0%†80.0%†
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench–64.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI–79.0%
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL–66.9%†
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis62.3%–
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–50.5%
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis–33.2%
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis–37.5%
CUA-benchVals AI–5.8%
CyberBenchVals AI–72.7%
Finance Agent v2Vals AI57.0%60.0%
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI62.9%–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI14.2%–
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI9.2%23.8%
Legal Research BenchVals AI45.2%55.3%
SREBenchVals AI–3.8%
Tax Agent BenchVals AI44.4%42.4%
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI31.8%24.8%
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI–10.0%
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis66.6%57.9%
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis17.2%26.6%
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey–8.9%
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis15701581
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis12.9%10.9%
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%74.0%
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub46.3%46.3%
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub99.4%99.2%†
ProofBenchVals AI–58.0%
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench–96.0%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)–1510
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub42.5%–
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench79.5%†79.6%†
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench79.5%†68.6%†
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench–79.6%†
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis4.725
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL–59.5%†
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL–61.6%†
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI61.8%67.4%
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI69.2%–
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL–62.2%†
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–27.6%†
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis42.9%43.6%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis33.3%67.1%
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench–82.8%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench–78.0%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)–1485
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)–1496
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)–1463
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)–1494
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)–1497
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)–1308
LiveBench DesignLiveBench83.4%†74.8%†
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis80.6%82.0%†
AA-3DArtificial Analysis–1037
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis82.7%83.0%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)–1468
MLCRArtificial Analysis26.7%13.9%
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–157.2†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench79.2%†74.8%†
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench–81.6%†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis45.148.1
Vals IndexVals AI61.3–
Vals Finance IndexVals AI60.9%–
Vals RSI IndexVals AI–19.6%
Vals Router IndexVals AI61.3%†–
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis56.8–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis44.4–

Data as of 2026-10-24. 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)…).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 3 new results (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1, Vals RSI Index, SWE-bench Multimodal); 1 score revision.
  • 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…).
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max): 1 new result (FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)); 2 score revisions.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 2 new results (ProgramBench, SREBench); 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): 2 new results (APEX-Agents, FrontierSWE); 1 score revision.
  • Muse Spark 1.3 (max): BenchLeader Index 68.0 → 67.5.

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

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Spark 1.3: questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Muse Spark 1.3?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) are neck and neck on quality (64.0 vs 67.1, within the ±5.9 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 2026-10-24, so check the category scores for your use.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Muse Spark 1.3, and will that change?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper today: $0.525 against $2.00 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 Muse Spark 1.3 for coding?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores higher in coding (70 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1664 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 against 1657 for Muse Spark 1.3.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 better than Muse Spark 1.3 for agents and tool use?
Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher in agentic tasks (66 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
Which is better for long documents?
They are level on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 67). Both accept 1,048,576 tokens of context.
Which has lower latency?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) answers first: 11.2 s against 90.1 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 Muse Spark 1.3?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 streams faster: 198 against 116 output tokens per second.
Do independent benchmarks agree on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Spark 1.3?
Across the 27 benchmarks both have, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads 11, Muse Spark 1.3 leads 15 and 1 is a tie. Every overall index that rates both puts Muse Spark 1.3 ahead.
When was DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 released?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 was released on 17 Oct 2026.