ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Inkling Small vs Qwen3.8 27B

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash comes out ahead, 78 to 70 and 67 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    DeepSeek

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

    Released Sep 10, 2026

    78/100
    • ECI155.0
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

  2. Thinking Machines

    Inkling Small

    Released Jul 30, 2026

    70/100
    • ECI150.2
    • Price$0.50 / $1.20
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Inkling Small

  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 27B

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    67/100
    • ECI149.4
    • Price$0.40 / $2.50
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 27B
01 — Verdict

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is our pick

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Inkling Small (70) and Qwen3.8 27B (67). It leads on capability and price. Qwen3.8 27B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityDeepSeek V4.1 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 155.0 · Inkling Small 150.2 · Qwen3.8 27B 149.4
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 Flash $0.263 · Inkling Small $0.675 · Qwen3.8 27B $0.925 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextInkling SmallInkling Small 1,048,576 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsInkling Small and Qwen3.8 27BDeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Text, Images · Inkling Small: Text, Images, Audio · Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightDeepSeek V4.1 FlashInkling SmallQwen3.8 27B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%847877
Price25%775851
Inputs & features15%707080
Context window10%606137
Overall100%78/10070/10067/100
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 vs Inkling Small vs Qwen3.8 27B specifications side by side
SpecificationDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeekInkling SmallThinking MachinesQwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)155.0 (best)150.2149.4
ECI rank#29 of 148 (best)#47 of 148#53 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—88.5%—
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—46.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—90.0%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—19.1%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15 (best)$0.50$0.40
Output$0.60 (best)$1.20$2.50
Cached input$0.003——
Blended (3:1)$0.263 (best)$0.675$0.925
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial DeepSeek APIMedian of 11 providersMedian of 39 providers
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output384,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoYesNo
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · high · maxYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenMITOpenApache-2.0Open
API model IDdeepseek-flash——
API providers50 (best)1141
ReleasedSep 10, 2026Jul 30, 2026Aug 14, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 2025——
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$2.70
  • Inkling Small$7.40
  • Qwen3.8 27B$9.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Inkling Small or Qwen3.8 27B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 78/100 against Inkling Small (70) and Qwen3.8 27B (67). It leads on capability and price. Qwen3.8 27B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Inkling Small or Qwen3.8 27B?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price). Inkling Small costs $0.50 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers); Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.40 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 39 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash versus $0.675 for Inkling Small (2.6× as much) and $0.925 for Qwen3.8 27B (3.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 155.0 (#29 of 148), Inkling Small 150.2 (#47 of 148) and Qwen3.8 27B 149.4 (#53 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (148.8–157.6 vs 147.5–152.1), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Inkling Small and Qwen3.8 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 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?

Inkling Small has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash up to 384,000, Inkling Small up to 1,048,576, Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts text and images; Inkling Small accepts text, images and audio; Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video. Inkling Small handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights (MIT and Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Qwen3.8 27B came out Aug 14, 2026; Inkling Small came out Jul 30, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash May 2025.

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 Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons