Navigate
Advertise here

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B leads on average score with 5.5 vs 5.4. Qwen3.6 27B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.062 vs $0.185. Qwen3.6 27B is faster at 10.62s vs 14.85s, with pass rates of 34.9% vs 45.5%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-10

Compared models

Rank
#248
Total Output Tokens
273,780
Response Time (avg)
14.85s
Total Cost
$0.185
Rank
#243
Total Output Tokens
16,156
Response Time (avg)
10.62s
Total Cost
$0.062
Recommended model Qwen3.6 27B

It has the best score here (5.5), while costing about 3.0x less than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.

Detailed comparison

Metric DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek V4.1 Flash none Release: 2026-09-10 Qwen3.6 27B Qwen3.6 27B none Release: 2026-04-20
Score 5.4 5.5
Rank #248 #243
Reliability 9.6 10.0
Consistency 9.3 7.6
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 34.9% 45.5%
Flaky tests 2 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 2.642 1.220
Total Cost $0.185 $0.062
Input Price $0.150 / 1M $0.300 / 1M
Output Price $0.600 / 1M $2.000 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 137,687 95,805
Output Tokens 273,780 16,156
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 14.85s 10.62s
Response Time (max) 247.66s 156.31s
Response Time (total) 326.72s 233.68s
Parameters 748B total (16B active) 27B
Availability Open source Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#248 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

none
Cost
$0.021
Time
55.4s
Tokens
17,181 tok

#243 Qwen3.6 27B

none
Cost
$0.009
Time
83.0s
Tokens
4,549 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 83.66s 7,284 263,438 0
Qwen3.6 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 4.16s 7,913 539 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair