Updated October 28, 2026. Rank says Gemini 4 Carbon is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher public point estimate, 88.42 versus 62.55. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher public coding point estimate, 82.2 to 47.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
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.
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.
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.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemini 4 Carbon is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
AutomationBenchAgentic
Normalized gap 22.1Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | Gemini 4 Carbon | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 47.8Supported · #53/156 | 82.2Supported · #3/156 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 1 public rows | Gemini 4 Carbon leads |
| Knowledge | 62.9Estimated · #40/178 | 88.2Supported · #2/178 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 53.4Supported · #45/134 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 60.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 79.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 87.4Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
Google Gemini 4 Carbon launchDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
deepseek-v4-pro
DeepSeek models and pricingGemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.044 per 1M cached input tokens
DeepSeek: Models & PricingGemini 4 Carbon
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini 4 Carbon launch postDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Gemini 4 Carbon
Not sourced
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Generally Available · DeepSeek API
DeepSeek models and pricing, V4 Pro continuation footnoteGemini 4 Carbon
Limited Access · Fairwind Program
Google Gemini 4 Carbon launchDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Reasoning
Gemini 4 Carbon
Reasoning
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Open Weight
Gemini 4 Carbon
Proprietary
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Open Weight
Gemini 4 Carbon
Proprietary
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
2026-08-13
Gemini 4 Carbon
2026-10-28
Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher public point estimate, 88.42 versus 62.55. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Gemini 4 Carbon has the higher public coding point estimate, 82.2 to 47.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Gemini 4 Carbon is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0033 on DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and $0.007 on Gemini 4 Carbon; repository review costs $0.07788 and $0.13; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0748 and $0.16. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 4 Carbon leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Not directly comparable
CWE-bench v1
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT
Not directly comparable
Codeforces
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Not directly comparable
DSBench-FullStack
Not directly comparable
DSBench-Hard
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
MRCR 1M
Not directly comparable
CorpusQA 1M
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Not directly comparable
GraphWalks BFS 256K–1M
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
Chinese-SimpleQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Not directly comparable
Apex
Not directly comparable
Apex Shortlist
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated October 28, 2026
