The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are closely matched at 49.8 and 51.0 on the LLM Stats Score. Claude Haiku 5.5 is 2.6x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 49.8 and 51.0.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Claude Haiku 5.5 is roughly 2.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Haiku 5.5

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 2.6x cheaper per token

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Haiku 5.5
Anthropic
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.8
#19
51.0
#15
Reasoning
47.2
#25
48.6
#18
Coding
39.2
#13
39.1
#15
Agents
33.9
#29
38.6
#9
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 4
1 of 4
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Haiku 5.5
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Math
25.7#113
31.8#67
Vision
30.3#39
32.2#26
Tool use
20.2#65
30.9#7
Multimodal
31.3#33
35.0#14
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

36 reported for Claude Haiku 5.5 · 11 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

4 shared

Claude Haiku 5.5 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (Chartography, Humanity's Last Exam (no tools, text-only), Program Bench), while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is better at 1 benchmark (Terminal-Bench 4.0).

Claude Haiku 5.5 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Claude Haiku 5.5 costs less

For input processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.10/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.50/1M tokens) is 2.4x cheaper than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is more expensive than Claude Haiku 5.5.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerAnthropic
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Haiku 5.5's 1,000,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while Claude Haiku 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Haiku 5.5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Haiku 5.5 was released on 2026-10-07, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 0 month newer than Claude Haiku 5.5.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Oct 7, 2026

1 weeks ago

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

2 days ago

1w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Haiku 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Haiku 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017's cutoff date.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Jun 2026

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

—

Provider Availability

Claude Haiku 5.5 is available from Anthropic. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek.

Claude Haiku 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Haiku 5.5
✓ Preferred
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017.

Which is better, Claude Haiku 5.5 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 49.8 and 51.0. Claude Haiku 5.5 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Haiku 5.5 compare to DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 in benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores Global-MMLU: 87.8%, MILU: 87.6%, BenchCAD (with Python tool): 87.0%, Chartography: 86.2%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 83.7%. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%.

Is Claude Haiku 5.5 cheaper than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is 3.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs $0.10/M input and $0.50/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Haiku 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.8 vs 51.0), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.30/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek.

Related comparisons