Updated September 27, 2026. Rank says DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public score estimate, 63.48 versus 44.84, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 3 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
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads on the public coding lane, 50.3 to 35.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the larger documented context window.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 31B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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 v5.7
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
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.
2 categories rest 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.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 16.2GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 5.8MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 2.3Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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 | Gemma 4 31B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 50.3Supported · #39/135 | 35.7Supported · #72/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 15 vs 2 public rows | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 55.0Supported · #29/105 | 23.9Estimated · #83/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 63.4Estimated · #29/158 | 40.0Supported · #91/158 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 56.9Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 70.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 58.5#32/50 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 91.5#12/124 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 80.2Unranked · 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 v5.7) 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
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Gemma 4 31B has no comparable published API token rate.
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
Gemma 4 31B
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
deepseek-v4-pro
DeepSeek models and pricingGemma 4 31B
gemma-4-31b-it
Google Gemma Gemini API guideA 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 & PricingGemma 4 31B
No comparable hosted API rate
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Gemma 4 31B
text, image
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Gemma 4 31B
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Generally Available · DeepSeek API
DeepSeek models and pricing, V4 Pro continuation footnoteGemma 4 31B
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, open weights
Google Gemma Gemini API guideDeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Reasoning
Gemma 4 31B
Reasoning
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Open Weight
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Open Weight
Gemma 4 31B
Open Weight
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
2026-08-13
Gemma 4 31B
2026-04-02
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the higher public score estimate, 63.48 versus 44.84, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads the public coding lane, 50.3 to 35.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 55 to 23.9. Gemma 4 31B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
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
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
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
SWE-Rebench
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
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
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result
SimpleQA
Not directly comparable
Chinese-SimpleQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
HLE
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
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 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 27, 2026
