DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#5 of 44$0.022 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.15DeepSeek · Sep 10, 2026$0.106IBM watsonx.ai · Aug 29, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.60Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026Not reported
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,049K1K
Model facts checkedSep 10, 2026View model evidence →Aug 28, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Different Model RolesThese models do not share a sourced market category. Their primary-source facts remain comparable below, while performance claims require matched evidence.

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldDeepSeek-V4.1-Flashgranite-embedding-278m-multilingual
DeveloperDeepSeekIBM
FamilyDeepseek V4 1Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual
ModelDeepSeek-V4.1-Flashgranite-embedding-278m-multilingual
VersionDeepSeek-V4.1-Flashgranite-embedding-278m-multilingual
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-09-102024-12-18
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextEmbedding
Context window1,049K1K
Total parameters763.2B278M
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licensemitapache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessDeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Hugging Face (Standard), IBM watsonx.ai (Pay as you go)
Capabilitiesagents, chat, fim, generation, reasoning, responses, structured_outputs, tools, visionembeddings
Architecture designCausal Encoder-Decoder (20 encoder + 20 decoder layers)Unknown
Backbone parameters552000000000 parametersUnknown
Active parameters during decode16000000000 parametersUnknown
Active parameters during prefill8000000000 parametersUnknown
Pre-training corpus45000000000000 tokensUnknown
Reasoning effort range1–100Unknown
Routed experts per MoE layer384 expertsUnknown
Routed experts per token6 expertsUnknown
Transformer layers40 layersUnknown

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Capabilities

agentschatfimgenerationreasoningresponsesstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers3
Canonical IDdeepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual Capabilities

embeddings
Serving providers2
Canonical IDibm-granite/granite-embedding-278m-multilingual

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual FAQs

Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is $0.15 and Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual is $0.106 per million tokens, so Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual is cheaper on this metric. Only DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $0.60 per million tokens.

Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the larger sourced context window. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash supports 1,049K and Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual supports 1K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is open weight; Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual is open weight.

Can DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual understand images?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is documented with image input; Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is 393K and Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual is —.

Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual support reasoning and tool use?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 3 sourced provider routes; Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual has 2, so DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Granite Embedding 278m Multilingual?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback