DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsQwen3.8-Max-0902
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash | Qwen3.8-Max-0902 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 2.4T |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 74.2% | 69.3% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | 65.4% | 64.9% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | 30% | 29% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 54.8% | 50.8% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
QwenSWEBench V2Software engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark, second version, built around complex real-world software-engineering tasks. Scores are not comparable with the first version. Higher is better. | — | 70% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 31.2% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 90.6% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 64% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 73.3% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 88.1% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 36.8% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 63.9% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 90.9% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 31.8% | — |
Chartography · with toolsChart tasks — A chart-centred test run with tools available to the AI, reported separately from the chart-reading benchmarks above it. Higher is better. | 78.9% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 82.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | Qwen |
| Release date | Sep 10 2026 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsGPT-6 AstraQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGPT-6 AstraDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGemini 3.8 FlashDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsMuse Spark 1.3DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsGrok 4.6DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads Qwen3.8-Max-0902 on 4 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, NL2Repo-Bench, Terminal-Bench 3.0, AutomationBench). Qwen3.8-Max-0902 shipped 8 days before DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On DeepSWE 1.1, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads at 74.2% vs Qwen3.8-Max-0902 at 69.3%. On NL2Repo-Bench, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads at 65.4% vs Qwen3.8-Max-0902 at 64.9%. On Terminal-Bench 3.0, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads at 30% vs Qwen3.8-Max-0902 at 29%. On AutomationBench, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads at 54.8% vs Qwen3.8-Max-0902 at 50.8%.