Head-to-head
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs DeepSeek-OCR 2
A 6.0-point composite gap — but the real story is the dimension mix. Same weights, unpacked: who leads where, and whether the premium is justified.
#12 / 24
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
DeepSeek
The nail that sells document skill for ¥0.6
Full dossierThe short answer
The composites differ by 6.0 points, and their strengths do not overlap.
Stronger overall: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash. If you only run one workload, read the dimension table instead.
Overlaid radar
Same weights, same scale; overlap means parity
- DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash87.9
- DeepSeek-OCR 281.9
Dimension deltas
A on the left, B on the right; 100 max per row
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads 6, DeepSeek-OCR 2 leads 2.
Spec sheet
Hard specs in one table
| Item | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | DeepSeek-OCR 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Composite | 87.9 | 81.9 |
| Tier | A | B+ |
| Visual perception & grounding | 90WIN | 84 |
| Document parsing & Chinese OCR | 95 | 99WIN |
| Chart & document reasoning | 92WIN | 88 |
| Video & long-horizon reasoning | 78WIN | 70 |
| GUI agents & tool use | 85WIN | 72 |
| Generation & editing | 72WIN | 60 |
| Chinese context & culture | 86 | 90WIN |
| Ecosystem, cost & availability | 95WIN | 76 |
| Output price | ¥0.6 / M | ¥0.8 / M |
| Context | 128K | 64K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed (MoE, ~8B active) | Undisclosed (DeepEncoder V2) |
| Licence | Open weights (MIT) | Open (MIT-style) |
| Native multimodal | Yes | No |
| Evidence grade | B | A |
How to choose
Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash if…
- High-volume receipt, contract and scan structuring
- Cost baseline and control group for document pipelines
- Commercial on-prem work that needs an MIT licence
- You cannot accept its limitation: Video timing at 78 is among the lowest here; long video supports only coarse summaries.
How to choose
Choose DeepSeek-OCR 2 if…
- Batch receipt and contract structuring
- Archive digitization
- RAG document preprocessing
- You cannot accept its limitation: Image/document only; no video or audio.
Scenario check
Five scenarios, who holds up
| Scenario | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | DeepSeek-OCR 2 | Better |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese receipt OCR | 95 | 98 | DeepSeek-OCR 2 |
| Chart data extraction | 92 | 87 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| 30-min video QA | 74 | 60 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| Mobile GUI control | 82 | 65 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| Chinese cultural context | 86 | 88 | DeepSeek-OCR 2 |
Comparison FAQ
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs DeepSeek-OCR 2: which is stronger?
Composite: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 87.9, DeepSeek-OCR 2 81.9. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads on Visual perception & grounding, Chart & document reasoning, Video & long-horizon reasoning, GUI agents & tool use, Generation & editing, Ecosystem, cost & availability; DeepSeek-OCR 2 leads on Document parsing & Chinese OCR, Chinese context & culture. The stronger overall is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash.
How much more expensive is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash than DeepSeek-OCR 2?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is ¥0.6/1M output tokens; DeepSeek-OCR 2 is ¥0.8/1M. On output price, DeepSeek-OCR 2 is pricier; real cost also depends on image tokens and input share.
Can DeepSeek-OCR 2 replace DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
It depends on your primary workload. If it sits in DeepSeek-OCR 2’s strengths (Batch receipt and contract structuring, Archive digitization, RAG document preprocessing), yes. If you need High-volume receipt, contract and scan structuring, switching will cost quality.
Personal ranking · Not an official score
Every ranking, score and comparison on this page is an independent personal ranking, not an official score, and represents no vendor, institution or regulator. Scores are a subjective mapping of public evidence under our own weights — change the weights and the order changes. Disagree, or spotted a factual error? Contact the site owner: jizhi2024@foxmail.com — we check each report and log corrections in the changelog.