DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Wonder
As of 13 Oct 2026, Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality (66.3 vs 62.2 on the BenchLeader Index), but DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) costs 15× less, so it is the better buy unless you need the extra quality.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 
Muse Wonder Key differences
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 62.2.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, long context, maths, multimodal.
- Muse Wonder (max) is stronger in composite, knowledge, reasoning.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is 15× cheaper ($0.525 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) streams 2.4× faster (204 vs 85 tokens per second).
Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) if
- long context is the priority (67 vs 66 on the category score)
- cost matters: $0.525 against $8.00 per million tokens blended
- you need fast output: 204 against 85 tokens per second
- the wait for the first word matters: 10.8 s against 60.8 s to first answer
- you want to run it yourself: its weights are open
Choose Muse Wonder (max) if
- reasoning is the priority (88 vs 65 on the category score)
- knowledge is the priority (73 vs 59 on the category score)
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.
| Category | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Muse Wonder (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 65.1 | 87.8 | Muse Wonder |
| Coding | 64.0 | – | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | 57.9 | – | not comparable |
| Maths | 61.9 | – | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 59.2 | 73.0 | Muse Wonder |
| Human preference | 66.9 | – | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 60.9 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | 67.2 | 65.5 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash |
| Composite | 70.9 | 78.2 | Muse Wonder |
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.
| Measure | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $0.525 | $8.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $0.300 / $1.20 | $4.00 / $20.00 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0005 | $0.0076 |
| Price per task: summarise a 30-page report | $0.0043 | $0.060 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.0036 | $0.054 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.023 | $0.320 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0008 | $0.012 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $0.265 | $4.52 |
| Output speed | 204 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 10.8 s | 60.8 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 13.3 s | 66.7 s |
Every benchmark
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Muse Wonder (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.2 | 66.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 57.9 | – |
| Coding score | 64.0 | – |
| Composite score | 70.9 | 78.2 |
| Human preference score | 66.9 | – |
| Knowledge score | 59.2 | 73.0 |
| Long context score | 67.2 | 65.5 |
| Maths score | 61.9 | – |
| Multimodal score | 60.9 | – |
| Reasoning score | 65.1 | 87.8 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.525 | $8.00 |
| Output speed | 204 tok/s | 85 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 10.8 s | 60.8 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.8% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 67.4% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 98.3% | – |
| SciCode | 51.9% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1475 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1499 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1528 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1619 | – |
| LMArena Vision | 1277 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 3.8 | – |
| LiveBench | 81.1% | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 86.7% | 90.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | 80.0% | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 77.3% | 62.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 93.3% | 96.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.3% | 81.6% |
| LiveBench Language | 81.2% | 82.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 70.0% | 73.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | 39.5 | 52.4 |
| AA-LCR | 84.0% | 80.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 77.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | -5.3 | 25.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.3% | 50.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.9% | 60.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.9% | – |
| CritPt | 14.3% | 28.3% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | 55.0% | 63.5% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 46.9% | – |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 6.7% | – |
| Public Benefits Bench | 64.3% | – |
| SREBench | 0.8% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1493 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1477 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1466 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1482 | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43.0% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1092.3 | – |
| GDP.pdf | 19.8% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | 26.8% | 52.0% |
| AutomationBench | 68.9% | 68.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 12.8% | 30.6% |
| MLCR | 22.8% | – |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | 1.7% | – |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | 46.4% | 41.1% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | 3.5% | 73.5% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | 1422 | 1659 |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | 44.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | 9.1% | – |
| AA Cyber Index | 4081.1% | – |
| CWE-Bench (AA) | 68.3% | – |
| DeepSec-Bench (AA) | 31.2% | – |
| CyberGym end-to-end (AA) | 22.9% | – |
| AA Openness Index | 44.4 | – |
Data as of 2026-10-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Wonder: questions
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Muse Wonder?
- Muse Wonder (max) leads on quality: 66.3 vs 62.2. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Muse Wonder (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-13, but check the category scores for your use.
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Wonder?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.525 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Wonder?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash streams faster: 204 against 85 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Muse Wonder accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.