DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
Claude Haiku 5.5 comes out ahead, 83 to 79 and 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
79/100- ECI158.8
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context1M
- Our pick
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5
83/100- ECI160.4
- Price$0.10 / $0.50
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
55/100- ECI143.8
- Price$0.30 / $2.90
- Context262K
Claude Haiku 5.5 is our pick
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (79) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55). It leads on capability, price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Haiku 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8
- Lowest priceClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 $0.20 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Claude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images · Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Publishes downloadable weights (MIT and Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 87 | 89 | 69 |
| Price | 25% | 74 | 80 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 70 | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 83/100 | 55/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek | Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic | Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 158.8 | 160.4 (best) | 143.8 |
| ECI rank | #19 of 165 | #14 of 165 (best) | #93 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 93.2% (best) | 89.7% | 80.1% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 71.2% | 75.1% (best) | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 99.4% (best) | 98.9% | 86.7% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 42.5% (best) | 23.8% | 40.4% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.15 | $0.10 (best) | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.60 | $0.50 (best) | $2.90 |
| Cached input | $0.003 (best) | $0.01 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.263 | $0.20 (best) | $0.95 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 100K: $0.50 / $2.50 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official DeepSeek API | Official Anthropic API | Median of 11 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 384,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 81,920 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | deepseek-flash | claude-haiku-5-5 | — |
| API providers | 40 (best) | 33 | 12 |
| Released | Oct 17, 2026 | Oct 7, 2026 | Jul 25, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2025 | Jun 2026 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
- Claude Haiku 5.5$2.00
- Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (79) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55). It leads on capability, price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price); Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.20 per million tokens for Claude Haiku 5.5 versus $0.263 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (1.3× as much) and $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (4.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 (#14 of 165), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8 (#93 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (157.3–163.8 vs 156.7–162.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%, Claude Haiku 5.5 89.7%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 80.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 86.7%; SimpleQA Verified — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 42.5%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 40.4%, Claude Haiku 5.5 23.8%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, Claude Haiku 5.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Claude Haiku 5.5 have the largest context windows (1,000,000 and 1,000,000 tokens), against 262,144 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000, Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images; Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text. Claude Haiku 5.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 publishes its weights (MIT and Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 5.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 came out Oct 7, 2026; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 2025, Claude Haiku 5.5 Jun 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.8
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 153.2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle · ECI 158.2
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.8
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 153.2
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle · ECI 158.2
