DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 comes out ahead, 83 to 79 and 72 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
72/100- ECI156.1
- Price$0.28 / $1.20
- Context1M
- DeepSeek
DeepSeek 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
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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (72). 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 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 156.1
- Lowest priceClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 $0.20 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash $0.51 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1,000,000 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 5.5DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Text, Images · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images · Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | Claude Haiku 5.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 84 | 87 | 89 |
| Price | 25% | 61 | 74 | 80 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 60 | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 79/100 | 83/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek | Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 156.1 | 158.8 | 160.4 (best) |
| ECI rank | #34 of 165 | #19 of 165 | #14 of 165 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 89.8% | 93.2% (best) | 89.7% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 67.4% | 71.2% | 75.1% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 98.3% | 99.4% (best) | 98.9% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 42.9% (best) | 42.5% | 23.8% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.28 | $0.15 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $0.60 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.003 (best) | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.51 | $0.263 | $0.20 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 100K: $0.50 / $2.50 |
| Price source | Median of 61 providers | Official DeepSeek API | Official Anthropic API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 384,000 tokens (best) | 384,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenMIT | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | deepseek-flash | claude-haiku-5-5 |
| API providers | 64 (best) | 40 | 33 |
| Released | Sep 10, 2026 | Oct 17, 2026 | Oct 7, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2025 | 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$5.20
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
- Claude Haiku 5.5$2.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Claude Haiku 5.5?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (79) and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (72). 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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Claude Haiku 5.5?
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); DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs $0.28 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 61 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 $0.51 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (2.6× 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 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 156.1 (#34 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%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 89.8%, Claude Haiku 5.5 89.7%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Claude Haiku 5.5 75.1%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 71.2%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 67.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 98.3%; SimpleQA Verified — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 42.9%, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 42.5%, Claude Haiku 5.5 23.8%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Claude Haiku 5.5 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, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Claude Haiku 5.5 share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash up to 384,000, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000, Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts text and images; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images; Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Haiku 5.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes its weights (MIT) 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; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash came out Sep 10, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash May 2025, 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 vs GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.7
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 153.2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 FlashGoogle · ECI 157.6
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 151.8
- 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
