Noometry

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Phi-4 Mini

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

50.3

Rank #40 Confirmed

Phi-4 Mini Microsoft

30.4

Rank #280 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 3 categories and Phi-4 Mini in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 52.8 to 27.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 51.9% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 10.8% for Phi-4 Mini.
  • Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
ProviderDeepSeekMicrosoft
Noometry Index50.330.4
Released2026-09-092024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output393K4K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.075
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$0.30
Results tracked253

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

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29), Phi-4 Mini: 27.6 (#312)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
SciCode51.9%10.8%
LMArena WebDev1620—
LMArena Coding1511—
ALE-Bench1,092—

Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39), Phi-4 Mini: 21.7 (#190)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
CritPt14.3%0%
NYT Connections (extended)89.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1485—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA47%—
Surface Evolver Bench46.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.01—

Math Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1493—

Knowledge DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97), Phi-4 Mini: 24.8 (#261)

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
Vectara Hallucination Rate—23.5%
LMArena Expert1505—

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Non-English1452—
LMArena Chinese1506—
LMArena French1448—
LMArena Russian1473—
LMArena Spanish1499—

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Instruction Following1475—

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Longer Query1476—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43), Phi-4 Mini: —

BenchmarkDeepSeek V4.1 FlashPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Text1465—
LMArena Creative Writing1436—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1540—
LMArena Multi-Turn1460—

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Phi-4 Mini?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Phi-4 Mini?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash lists at $0.15 and $0.60.

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 27.6 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 V4.1 Flash and Phi-4 Mini share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper