Compare AI models: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Muse Ember
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeekHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
- Muse EmberMetaHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | 53/100 | 100/100 | 69/100 | 81/100 | 33/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
| Muse Ember | 100/100 | 0/100 | 72/100 | 92/100 | 83/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
Overview
Author
Context length
1M
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text, Image
Text, Image, Video, Pdf, Audio
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$0.04/ 1M
$0.10/ 1M
Output
$0.70/ 1M
$0.50/ 1M
Cached input
$0.0024/ 1M
$0.004/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
109K
41K
Completed sessions
1,318,548
554,695
Token share
0.29%
0.16%
Tokens
4T+100%
2.2T+100%
SEP 16NOV 10
SEP 16NOV 10
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
Pending
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructNearby alternativeMuse Ember vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructMuse Ember·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructRelated comparisonDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Jamba MiniDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonMuse Ember vs Jamba MiniMuse Ember·Jamba Mini