DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Qwen3.6 27B: which to choose?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (DeepSeek) and Qwen3.6 27B (Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)) compared point by point: measured performance, pricing, context and capabilities.

Data as of October 22, 2026

Side-by-side comparison

CriterionDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Qwen3.6 27B
DeveloperDeepSeekAlibaba Cloud (Qwen)
ReleasedOctober 17, 2026April 22, 2026
Capability index90.6 / 10072.2 / 100
Input price$0.15$0.33
Output price$0.60$2.7
Cost of a typical task$0.004$0.012
Context window1,048,576 tokens262,144 tokens
Maximum output393,216 tokens65,536 tokens
Reasoning modeYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Accepted inputstext, imagetext, image, video
Open weightsYesYes
Knowledge cutoffMay 2025Not disclosed

What are we comparing?

This comparison pits two open-weight models that you can install on your own servers against each other: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and Qwen3.6 27B, one from DeepSeek, the other from Alibaba Cloud (Qwen). The first dates from October 17, 2026, the second from April 22, 2026.

All figures below come from public sources checked on October 22, 2026: models.dev and OpenRouter for prices and capabilities, Epoch AI for scores.

What the benchmarks say

On our capability index, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores 90.6 out of 100 and Qwen3.6 27B 72.2. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 leads by 18.4 points.

On the 3 benchmarks reported for both, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 wins 3 times and Qwen3.6 27B 0:

  • GPQA Diamond (PhD-level science questions): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%, Qwen3.6 27B 85.9%
  • OTIS Mock AIME (competition mathematics problems): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, Qwen3.6 27B 91.1%
  • FrontierMath (very hard research-level mathematics): DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 71.2%, Qwen3.6 27B 35.1%

Budget

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.33 and $2.7.

For a typical agent task (read 20,000 tokens, write 2,000), expect $0.004 with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 versus $0.012 with Qwen3.6 27B. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is 2.8 times cheaper, a gap that adds up quickly over 1,000 tasks: $7.7 difference.

Run the numbers with your own volumes in the agent cost calculator.

Features and limits

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 reads more in one go: 1,048,576 tokens of context (roughly 1,573 pages), versus 262,144 for Qwen3.6 27B.

Reasoning mode: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yes, Qwen3.6 27B yes. Tool calling: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yes, Qwen3.6 27B yes. Image input: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yes, Qwen3.6 27B yes.

Both publish their weights: you can host them yourself.

In short

Our reading of the data:

  • Choose DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 for a higher capability index, a lower cost, a larger context window and a more recent release.

This verdict relies on public figures; it does not replace a trial on your own tasks.

Other comparisons

Frequently asked questions

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Qwen3.6 27B: which is better?

On our index (Epoch AI data), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 scores 90.6 and Qwen3.6 27B 72.2 out of 100. The best choice also depends on price and on your use case.

Which one is cheaper?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. To read 20,000 tokens and write 2,000, expect $0.004 with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 and $0.012 with Qwen3.6 27B (prices as of October 22, 2026).

Which one has the larger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017, with 1,048,576 tokens versus 262,144.

Can I run DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 or Qwen3.6 27B on my own servers?

Yes, both publish their weights. Check each license before commercial use.

Data sources

Data as of October 22, 2026

Report an error

Does a figure, a date or a fact look wrong? Tell us: every report is checked.