Head-to-head
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash
A 0.4-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 0.4 points, and their strengths do not overlap.
Stronger overall: effectively tied. 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
- Qwen3.8-Flash87.5
Dimension deltas
A on the left, B on the right; 100 max per row
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads 3, Qwen3.8-Flash leads 5.
Spec sheet
Hard specs in one table
| Item | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Qwen3.8-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Composite | 87.9 | 87.5 |
| Tier | A | A |
| Visual perception & grounding | 90WIN | 89 |
| Document parsing & Chinese OCR | 95WIN | 90 |
| Chart & document reasoning | 92WIN | 86 |
| Video & long-horizon reasoning | 78 | 82WIN |
| GUI agents & tool use | 85 | 87WIN |
| Generation & editing | 72 | 80WIN |
| Chinese context & culture | 86 | 88WIN |
| Ecosystem, cost & availability | 95 | 97WIN |
| Output price | ¥0.6 / M | ¥1.2 / M |
| Context | 128K | 256K |
| Parameters | Undisclosed (MoE, ~8B active) | Undisclosed (MoE, ~12B active) |
| Licence | Open weights (MIT) | Open weights (Apache-2.0) |
| Native multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Evidence grade | B | B |
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 Qwen3.8-Flash if…
- High-volume product tagging and moderation
- Batch receipt structuring with flagship sampling
- Edge or low-cost on-prem deployment
- You cannot accept its limitation: Video timing is only 82; event localization drifts on long clips, so it should not carry video QA.
Scenario check
Five scenarios, who holds up
| Scenario | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Qwen3.8-Flash | Better |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese receipt OCR | 95 | 90 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| Chart data extraction | 92 | 85 | DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash |
| 30-min video QA | 74 | 80 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Mobile GUI control | 82 | 86 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Chinese cultural context | 86 | 88 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
Comparison FAQ
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash: which is stronger?
Composite: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 87.9, Qwen3.8-Flash 87.5. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads on Visual perception & grounding, Document parsing & Chinese OCR, Chart & document reasoning; Qwen3.8-Flash leads on Video & long-horizon reasoning, GUI agents & tool use, Generation & editing, Chinese context & culture, Ecosystem, cost & availability. The stronger overall is effectively tied.
How much more expensive is DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash than Qwen3.8-Flash?
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is ¥0.6/1M output tokens; Qwen3.8-Flash is ¥1.2/1M. On output price, Qwen3.8-Flash is pricier; real cost also depends on image tokens and input share.
Can Qwen3.8-Flash replace DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?
It depends on your primary workload. If it sits in Qwen3.8-Flash’s strengths (High-volume product tagging and moderation, Batch receipt structuring with flagship sampling, Edge or low-cost on-prem deployment), 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.