Model Comparison
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
vs. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
De V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) 16 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
100.0 value score
53.5 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
$0.14/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
53.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
39.8 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) is 1.4x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) leads Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 0.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) leads Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) by 26.7 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) wins 16 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) | Al Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.14/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.28/1M | $0.75/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18/1M | $0.34/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 24, 2026 | Oct 3, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 124.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1145ms |
| Latency | — | 17278ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 51.4 |
| Reasoning Score | 53.5 | 53.0 |
| Intelligence | 46.0 | 19.7 |
| Coding | 39.8 | 13.1 |
| Math | — | 82.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 86.7% | 72.0% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 80.7% |
| HLE | 27.8% | 8.7% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 69.7% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 82.3% |
| SciCode | 42.0% | 28.8% |
| LCR | 62.7% | 40.7% |
| IFBench | 73.5% | 45.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 95.6% | 19.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 38.6% | 5.3% |
Key Takeaways
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) offers the best value at $0.14/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 53.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 39.8 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B (Reasoning)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
