AI model comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Pricing, context window, benchmarks, and features compared side by side. Or skip the guesswork and send one prompt to both.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the October 17, 2026 snapshot of DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, served by DeepSeek under the `deepseek-flash` API model name.
- Input / 1M
- $0.15
- Output / 1M
- $0.60
- Context
- 1.05M
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
- Input / 1M
- $0.08
- Output / 1M
- $0.22
- Context
- 262K
Comparing image generators? Compare image models
At a glance
Quick verdict
How the two models stack up on the things people ask about most.
Lower price
Ling 3.1 Flash
2.3x cheaper for a typical chat
Higher intelligence score
Ling 3.1 Flash
41.1 vs 39.5 on Artificial Analysis
Larger context window
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
1.05M vs 262K tokens
Newer release
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Released October 17, 2026
Benchmarks
Benchmark scores
Independent scores from Artificial Analysis. Higher is better.
Intelligence index
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101739.5Coding index
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Not availableAgentic index
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Not availablePricing
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Ling 3.1 Flash API pricing
Per-token API rates. Cheaper option highlighted.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input tokensPer 1M tokens | $0.15 | $0.08 |
| Output tokensPer 1M tokens | $0.60 | $0.22 |
| Cached input (read)Per 1M tokens | $0.00 | $0.02 |
| Cache writePer 1M tokens | Not available | Not available |
What it costs in practice
Estimated cost per 1,000 requests at standard rates. Coding and long-document figures also show the cost when the input is already cached.
Chat message
2K in, 500 out
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$0.60Coding task
30K in, 4K out
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$6.90$2.49 cachedLong document summary
150K in, 2K out
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$23.70$1.65 cachedSpecs
Context window and capabilities
How much each model can read, how much it can write, and what it accepts as input.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | |
|---|---|---|
| Context window | 1.05M tokens | 262K tokens |
| Max output | 393K tokens | 236K tokens |
| Input types | Image, Text | Text |
| Output types | Text | Text |
| Reasoning effort levels | Max, High, Low, None | Not available |
| Default reasoning effort | High | Not available |
| Release date | October 17, 2026 | October 2, 2026 |
Features
Supported features
API features available for each model.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | Supported | Supported |
| Structured outputs | Not supported | Supported |
| JSON mode | Supported | Supported |
| Reasoning | Supported | Supported |
| Temperature | Supported | Supported |
| Stop sequences | Supported | Supported |
| Deterministic seed | Not supported | Supported |
| Verbosity control | Not supported | Not supported |
Keep exploring
More on these models
Other head-to-heads, the full model page, and the alternatives list for each model.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017View full model details- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Step 5 Preview
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GLM 5.3 Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-6 Luna
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs GPT-5.6 Luna
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Step 5 Preview
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs GLM 5.3 Flash
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-Flash
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Luna
Our take
Ling 3.1 Flash is 2.3x cheaper for a typical chat. Ling 3.1 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (41.1 vs 39.5). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the larger context window (1.05M vs 262K tokens). The right pick depends on your workload, so the quickest way to settle it is to send the same prompt to both and compare.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Ling 3.1 Flash cheaper?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper for a typical chat (2K input tokens and 500 output tokens). Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.08 per 1M input tokens and $0.22 per 1M output tokens, while DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.60 per 1M output tokens.
Which has a bigger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Ling 3.1 Flash?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 supports up to 1.05M tokens of context, compared with 262K for Ling 3.1 Flash.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 smarter than Ling 3.1 Flash?
On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores 39.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash scores 41.1, putting Ling 3.1 Flash ahead. Benchmarks don't capture everything, so the best test is running your own prompts through both.
Can I use DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Ling 3.1 Flash at the same time?
Yes. Shortcut Chat sends one prompt to multiple models at once, so you can see DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Ling 3.1 Flash answer side by side and keep the better response.
Why choose? Ask both.
Send one prompt to DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Ling 3.1 Flash at the same time. Compare the answers side by side and keep the best one.