Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated); Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Flash and Gemini 2.5 Pro share 5 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Flash; 19 to Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 17
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 2.5 Pro only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.88 versus 57.25. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Flash's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 40.8 against 11.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 71.2% to 83%.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash. That is roughly 35.7x on output cost alone.
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 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Δ | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 | Margin← 29.2 | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Flash38.8 | Margin← 11.4 | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2 | Margin← 0.4 | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 71.2%B 83%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 11.8GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 71.2%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 8.1%B 18.8%Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 10.7HLE: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 8.1%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.7%B 63.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 FlashΔ 9.9SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 73.7%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%. DeepSeek V4 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 64% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 40.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 54.35% | 42.01% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 7.1% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 54.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 8.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 665 | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.7% | 63.8% | DeepSeek V4 Flash leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 69.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 49.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 0.40% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 42.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Flash wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 23.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 71.2% | 83% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 8.1% | 18.8% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 25.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -14.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 39.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 41.9% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 1.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 9.3% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 14.138% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 4.167% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 48.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Flash or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.88 to 57.25. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 71.2% and 83%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Flash or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 38.8 versus 27.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Flash or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.2 versus 63.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Flash or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 40.8 versus 11.6. Gemini 2.5 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.