Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (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 Pro (High) and Gemini 2.5 Pro share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 5 to Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 19
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 6 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
Gemini 2.5 Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 57.25 versus 55.47. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 11.5x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 2.5 Pro 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.
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 (High) | Δ | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | Margin← 82.4 | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin← 29.6 | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin← 6.0 | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 2.5 ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.5%B 18.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 15.7HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 18.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.4%B 63.8%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 15.6SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 63.8%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 83%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 6.1GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 54.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 8.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 665 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 7.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.01% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | 63.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 42.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 33.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 0.40% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 83% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 18.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 25.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 84.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 21.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | -14.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 39.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 87.4% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 94.0% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 85.5% | — | 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 Pro (High) | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 48.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.25 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 18.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 27.4. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 63.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 2.5 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 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.