Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale DeepSeek

39.1

Rank #159 Reported

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

50.3

Rank #40 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale scores higher in 0 categories and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 65.8 to 46.1.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.58 / $1.68 for DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash specifications
DeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ProviderDeepSeekDeepSeek
Noometry Index39.150.3
Released2025-12-012026-09-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K1M
Max output128K393K
Input $ / M tokens$0.58$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$1.68$0.60
Results tracked325

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 39.9 (#136), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena WebDev—1620
SciCode—51.9%
WeirdML46.7%—
LMArena Coding—1511
ALE-Bench—1,092

Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.1 (#65), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
SimpleBench52.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)—89.6%
CritPt—14.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1485
DTBench—89.9%
LMCA—47%
Surface Evolver Bench—46.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—155.01

Math Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ProofBench—54%
LMArena Math—1493

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Expert—1505

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Non-English—1452
LMArena Chinese—1506
LMArena French—1448
LMArena Russian—1473
LMArena Spanish—1499

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1475

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1476

Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.1 (#217), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.2-SpecialeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash
EQ-Bench Creative Writing12761540
LMArena Text—1465
LMArena Creative Writing—1436
LMArena Multi-Turn—1460

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale lists at $0.58 and $1.68.

Is DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 39.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25.

Related comparisons

Go deeper