Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base vs Gemma 4 E4B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored); Gemma 4 E4B #155 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and Gemma 4 E4B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base; 13 to Gemma 4 E4B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
- 23
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base makes more sense if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Gemma 4 E4B is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 V4 Pro Base and Gemma 4 E4B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Gemma 4 E4B is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro Base 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. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.
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 Pro Base | Δ | Gemma 4 E4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base66.4 | Margin→ 1.0 | Gemma 4 E4B67.4 |
| Reasoning | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base51.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 73.5%B 69.4%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseΔ 4.1MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 73.5%; Gemma 4 E4B scored 69.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | Gemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base1M | Gemma 4 E4B128K | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 20.8% | Not comparable |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BBHSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| DROPSource | 88.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HellaSwagSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| WinoGrandeSource | 81.5% | — | Not comparable |
| CLUEWSCSource | 85.2% | — | Not comparable |
| LongBench v2Source | 51.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | — | 30.7% | Not comparable |
| CritPtSource | — | 0.6% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGIEvalSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 73.5% | 69.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base leads |
| MMMLUSource | 90.3% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| CMMLUSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MultiLoKoSource | 51.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 55.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| FACTS ParametricSource | 62.6% | — | Not comparable |
| TriviaQASource | 85.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 12.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 57.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 3.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -20.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 8.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 31.3% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MGSMSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 51.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 44.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Gemma 4 E4B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base and Gemma 4 E4B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro Base or Gemma 4 E4B?
Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 66.4. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.