Skip to main content

Model comparison

DeepSeek V3.2 vs Gemma 4 12B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.4/100
Margin
8.1pts
← winning
47.29/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported); Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and Gemma 4 12B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 12 to Gemma 4 12B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
DeepSeek V3.2 only
8
Gemma 4 12B only
12
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

DeepSeek V3.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.4 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemma 4 12B is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemma 4 12B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for DeepSeek V3.2 and Gemma 4 12B
CategoryDeepSeek V3.2ΔGemma 4 12B
MathDeepSeek V3.217.1Margin 60.4Gemma 4 12B77.5
CodingDeepSeek V3.260.9MarginNo overlapGemma 4 12BNot measured
ReasoningDeepSeek V3.2Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B43.4
KnowledgeDeepSeek V3.2Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B77.5
MultimodalDeepSeek V3.2Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B69.1

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 outputGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V3.235 tok/sGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V3.23.75 sGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V3.2128KGemma 4 12B256KGemma 4 12B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
Claw-EvalSource 40.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 18.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 78.9%36.3%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
Gert LabsSource 29.57%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
SWE-RebenchSource 60.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 71.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 38.7%38.2%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
AA-LCRSource 39.0%55.3%Gemma 4 12B leads
CritPtSource 0.9%0.0%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
BBHSource 53%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source 43.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 24.7%22.0%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.1%75.3%Gemma 4 12B leads
AA-HLESource 10.5%14.8%Gemma 4 12B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -46.7%-51.9%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.2%16.0%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 93.5%80.8%Gemma 4 12B leads
GPQASource 78.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 78.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 77.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 5.2%Not comparable
MMMLUSource 83.4%Not comparable
MathGemma 4 12B wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 22.100%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.100%Not comparable
AIME26Source 77.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1204Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 69.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 79.7%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 48.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.2Gemma 4 12BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 49.0%73.5%Gemma 4 12B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or Gemma 4 12B?

DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.4 to 47.29.

Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or Gemma 4 12B?

Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 17.1. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.