DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3 6
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 
Qwen3 6 Verdict
- Qwen3 6 (max) leads on quality: 63.3 vs 61.9.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is stronger in coding, composite, long context, multimodal, reasoning.
- Qwen3 6 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, knowledge, human preference, instruction following, maths.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is 11× cheaper ($0.262 vs $2.96 per 1M blended).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) streams 3.4× faster (215 vs 63 tokens per second).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) | Qwen3 6 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 61.9 | 63.3 |
| Agents & tools score | 59.6 | 71.9 |
| Coding score | 68.9 | 58.1 |
| Composite score | 74.5 | 64.9 |
| Knowledge score | 61.7 | 64.0 |
| Long context score | 68.5 | 66.8 |
| Multimodal score | 61.4 | – |
| Reasoning score | 69.5 | 59.1 |
| Human preference score | – | 65.7 |
| Instruction following score | – | 74.4 |
| Maths score | – | 65.9 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.262 | $2.96 |
| Output speed | 215 tok/s | 63 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 10.5 s | 35.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 246k |
| GPQA Diamond | – | 87.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | – | 91.1% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | – | 76.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | – | 52.0% |
| SimpleBench | – | 63.0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | – | 149.3 |
| LMArena Text | – | 1460 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1509 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1614 | 1479 |
| LMArena Agent | 4.9 | – |
| LiveBench | 81.1% | – |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 86.7% | – |
| LiveBench Coding | 80.0% | – |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 77.3% | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 93.3% | – |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.3% | – |
| LiveBench Language | 81.2% | – |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 70.0% | – |
| AA Intelligence Index | 39.5 | 28.4 |
| IFBench | – | 76.6% |
| AA-LCR | 84.0% | 80.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 77.0% | – |
| AA-Omniscience | -5.3 | 9.2 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | – | 43.9% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 88.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 39.3% | 30.8% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.9% | – |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | – | 95.9% |
| CorpFin | – | 66.5% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 72.8% |
| CritPt | 14.3% | 3.7% |
| GDPval (AA) | 56.6% | – |
| CaseLaw v2 | – | 47.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | – | 51.7% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1475 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1438 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1469 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1474 |
| Chess Puzzles | – | 20.0% |
| LMCA | – | 42.5% |
| DTBench | – | 87.2% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | – | 4254.2 |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3 6: questions
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen3 6?
- Qwen3 6 (max) leads on quality: 63.3 vs 61.9. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3 6 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen3 6 for coding?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in coding (69 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Qwen3 6 for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3 6 scores higher in agentic tasks (72 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3 6?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.262 against $2.96 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3 6?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash streams faster: 215 against 63 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M against 246k tokens.