ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 comes out ahead, 79 to 72 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    DeepSeek

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    Released Oct 17, 2026

    79/100
    • ECI158.8
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Released Sep 28, 2026

    72/100
    • ECI166.7
    • Price$2.00 / $10.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 5.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is our pick

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Claude Sonnet 5.5 (72). It leads on price. Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Sonnet 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 5.5 166.7 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Claude Sonnet 5.5 $4.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Claude Sonnet 5.5 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 5.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images · Claude Sonnet 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Claude Sonnet 5.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8797
Price25%7420
Inputs & features15%7080
Context window10%6060
Overall100%79/10072/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeekClaude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)158.8166.7 (best)
ECI rank#19 of 165#5 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions93.2%95.6% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics71.2%88.8% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics99.4%100% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions42.5%46.5% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15 (best)$2.00
Output$0.60 (best)$10.00
Cached input$0.003 (best)$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.263 (best)$4.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial DeepSeek APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output384,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · high · maxYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenMITProprietary
API model IDdeepseek-flashclaude-sonnet-5-5
API providers40 (best)34
ReleasedOct 17, 2026Sep 28, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 2025Jun 2026
03 — Cost

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 Sonnet 5.5$40.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Claude Sonnet 5.5 (72). It leads on price. Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2.00 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $4.00 for Claude Sonnet 5.5 (15× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 5.5 166.7 (#5 of 165) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (163.6–171.3 vs 156.7–162.2), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Sonnet 5.5 95.6%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Sonnet 5.5 88.8%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 71.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Sonnet 5.5 100%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%; SimpleQA Verified — Claude Sonnet 5.5 46.5%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 42.5%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000, Claude Sonnet 5.5 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images; Claude Sonnet 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Sonnet 5.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Claude Sonnet 5.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 came out Sep 28, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 2025, Claude Sonnet 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons