Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

DeepSeek

60.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #48

90% interval 51.1–70.8

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Gemini 3.6 Flash

Google

75.3/100

Supported · Public rank #9

90% interval 71.1–79.4

Decision reading

Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score, 75.25 versus 60.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 only
33
Gemini 3.6 Flash only
3
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
74.5
Gemini 3.6 Flash
83.0
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
70.9
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
62.5
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
4 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
95.2
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.00087
Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash
$0.00525
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.02436
Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash
$0.0975
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.01812
Fits in one request
Gemini 3.6 Flash
$0.135
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

$0.003625 per 1M cached input tokens

Gemini 3.6 Flash

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Reasoning

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Proprietary

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Proprietary

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

2026-08-13

Gemini 3.6 Flash

2026-07-21

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score, 75.25 versus 60.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.02436 vs $0.0975. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.01812 vs $0.135.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081360.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081373.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081351.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081374.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081325.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081331.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.6 Flash83%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081393.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 08133206.0
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081380.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081355.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081376.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.93%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash49%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • DSBench-FullStack

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081371.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.6 Flash53.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.6 Flash37.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081357.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081384.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081342.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081395.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081389.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081338.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.6 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

Gemini 3.6 Flash has the higher public score, 75.25 versus 60.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00087 on DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and $0.00525 on Gemini 3.6 Flash; repository review costs $0.02436 and $0.0975; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.01812 and $0.135. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.6 Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.