DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) vs Meta: Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
Side-by-side comparison of specs, pricing, benchmark scores, and task rankings. Updated 2026-11-07.
| DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) | Meta: Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | deepseek | meta |
| Quality Score | 100 | 100 |
| Input Price | $0.01/M | $0.10/M |
| Output Price | $0.20/M | $0.20/M |
| Context Window | 1,048,576 | 1,048,576 |
| Max Output | 943,718 | 943,718 |
| Tool Calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured Output | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reasoning Mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audio | - | - |
The verdict
For a sample job of 1 million input tokens and 250,000 output tokens, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) costs $0.061 and Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor costs $0.15, so DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) is about 2.5 times cheaper for the same work.
Both read up to 1,048,576 tokens at once, roughly 1,573 pages of text.
Only Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor offers video input.
Across the 5 tasks where they differ, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) scores higher on 5 (Code Completion, Code Documentation, Regex Writing and others).
Pick DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) if you need lower cost or the stronger all-round task scores; pick Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor if you need video input.
Costs use current list prices per million tokens; page counts assume about 0.75 words per token and 500 words per page.
Who wins by task?
| Task | DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) | Meta: Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor |
|---|---|---|
| Code Completion | 132 | 131 |
| Code Documentation | 132 | 131 |
| Regex Writing | 120 | 119 |
| JSON Extraction | 132 | 131 |
| Short-Form Summarization | 124 | 123 |
Scores reflect capability match + benchmark data + pricing for each task. Methodology →