Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
BenchLM
DeepSeek logo
Model A
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

DeepSeek

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Meta logo
Model B
Muse Spark 1.1

Meta

70.4/100

Supported · Public rank #16

90% interval 63.1–77.8

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
3
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash only
18
Muse Spark 1.1 only
23
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
60.0
Supported · #22/152
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 14 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
59.8
Supported · #23/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
74.4
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
70.8
Supported · #11/182
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
77.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Not ranked
Muse Spark 1.1
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
$0.0009
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
$0.0186
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
$0.0192
Fits in one request
Muse Spark 1.1
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Muse Spark 1.1 has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

1M

DeepSeek models and pricing

Muse Spark 1.1

1M

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

$0.006 per 1M cached input tokens

DeepSeek: Models & Pricing

Muse Spark 1.1

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Generally Available · DeepSeek API, open weights

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash release

Muse Spark 1.1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Reasoning

Muse Spark 1.1

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Open Weight

Muse Spark 1.1

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

2026-09-10

Muse Spark 1.1

2026-07-09

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBench3

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash30%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.20%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash88.1%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.159.0%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads this result

  • ExploitGym

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash15.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.10.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash63.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash54.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.180%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.175.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.180.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.184.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.157.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.153.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.114.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.154.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Cybench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.192.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.169.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash3471.0
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBench3

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash30%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.2%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash20.3%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash65.4%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.180.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.161.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.185.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.182.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.154.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash90.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash36.8%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.162.1%
    Source

    Muse Spark 1.1 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.152.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Professional

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.159.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.191.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.188.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash65.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • Chartography (tools)

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash78.9%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash89.6%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash49.0%
    Source
    Muse Spark 1.1—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash—
    Muse Spark 1.176.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.