DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Which one, when
Both models share a 1,000,000-token context window, text-plus-image input and the same chat, vision, code, reasoning and tools flags, so the split is cost and output ceiling. qwen3.8-flash is half the input price ($0.15 vs $0.3 per million) and about 2.6x cheaper on output ($0.47 vs $1.2), also accepts video, carries a long-context flag and lets you turn thinking off, which makes it the default for high-volume or multimodal ingest work. Pick deepseek-v4.1-flash when you need one response longer than Qwen's limit allows: 393,216 max output tokens against 131,072, roughly 3x the room.
Benchmarks
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.3 | $0.15 | 2× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $1.2 | $0.47 | 2.6× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.03 | $0.016 | 1.9× |
| Cache write | no separate charge | 1.25x | - |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 71 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | yes - vendor dial not published | configurable |
| Structured output | - | yes |
| Prompt caching | implicit (automatic) | implicit + explicit |
| Cache lifetime | no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) | explicit: 5m, reset on hit |
| Minimum cached prefix | not published | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-09-10 | 2026-08-27 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 393K | 131K |
| Thinking parameter | - |
|
| Accepted values | - | enable_thinking
thinking_budget
preserve_thinking
|
| Default | - | on qwen3.8-flash is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, thinking_budget defaults to the 262,144-token chain maximum, and preserve_thinking is off |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · Qwen3.8 Flash
One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning changed the unit economics: the model now spends extra billable tokens internally to “think” before producing the answer, and those reasoning tokens are charged like output tokens even though users never see them. That added token generation—plus longer contexts and occasional retries on harder prompts—roughly doubled our cost per request. We can control this by capping reasoning depth, routing only complex queries to reasoning models, and caching common prompts to bring the bill back down.
out 423 tok (+327 thinking) latency 14.6 s
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model spend additional output tokens to plan and validate answers before responding, and those tokens are billed. It also increases compute and latency per request, so each task consumes more capacity than a non-reasoning call. As a result, billable tokens and compute roughly doubled, directly driving the higher invoice.
out 330 tok (+262 thinking) latency 8.9 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` is counting equal adjacent pairs, not elements in the current run: every time `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`, the run length increases by one element, but the first element of the run was never counted, so all runs are undercounted by one. Also, `best` starts at `0`, so single-element inputs return `0` instead of `1`, and a one-element run ending at the last index is missed entirely.
out 918 tok (+733 thinking) latency 11.4 s
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that the original version counts adjacent equal pairs rather than items in a run, starting both `cur` and `best` at `0`, and it resets `cur` to `0` after a mismatch, thereby discarding the first element of the new run. That makes single-element inputs return `0`, and because every run is effectively measured in “steps” between equal elements, the last element is not counted—particularly noticeable when the longest run ends at the final index.
out 2123 tok (+1933 thinking) latency 43.8 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"
{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}
out 1707 tok (+1667 thinking) latency 15.1 s
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
out 519 tok (+463 thinking) latency 10.5 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 116 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Cache for our API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests and their responses across supported model providers, then serves cached results when a match is found. Teams can cut duplicate inference costs, reduce latency, and keep behavior consistent during provider failover. The cache works with configurable TTLs, per-route rules, and cache-key controls, so you decide what is reusable and what must stay fresh. Does your application send the same prompts to multiple providers? Now your gateway can answer many of those calls without another upstream request. Existing observability dashboards show hit rates, saved tokens, and estimated spend reduction. Enable it in the gateway console, set your policy, and start caching today.
out 917 tok (+770 thinking) latency 9.0 s
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are announcing prompt caching across providers in our API gateway. Store approved prompt outputs once and reuse them across supported model providers, cutting latency, cost, and duplicate token spend. The feature matches identical requests, checks validity, and returns cached results while preserving routing controls. Developers keep existing endpoints; the gateway manages storage, invalidation, and provider differences. This reduces noisy repeat calls, improves steady responses, and frees teams to focus on better agent workflows. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral, and custom routes are supported. Cache hits appear in analytics with latency, token, and cost reductions visible. Check retention and privacy rules before enabling it. Ready to add cache controls to your gateway? Enable it in settings and watch spend drop now.
out 5958 tok (+5805 thinking) latency 88.8 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="deepseek-v4.1-flash",
# model="qwen3.8-flash", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "deepseek-v4.1-flash",
// model: "qwen3.8-flash", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "deepseek-v4.1-flash",
# "model": "qwen3.8-flash", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "deepseek-v4.1-flash",
// Model: "qwen3.8-flash", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("deepseek-v4.1-flash")
// .model("qwen3.8-flash") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.15 vs $0.3, 2.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test DeepSeek V4.1 Flash against Qwen3.8 Flash without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash support prompt caching?
Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.