Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

55.47/100
No comparison
N/A
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite share 16 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 22 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 5 to Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
16
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
22
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite only
5
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) makes more sense if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 2 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 (High) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.30 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 2.9x on output cost alone.

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 scores and score margins for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
CategoryDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)ΔGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8Margin← 15.6Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite54.2
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6Margin← 7.2Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite63.4
ReasoningDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measuredMarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite72.2
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0MarginNo overlapGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)B · Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 63.3%B 54%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 9.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 54.4%B 54.2%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 0.2
    SWE-bench Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%; Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scored 54.2%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite$0.3 input / $2.5 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%54%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
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%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 39.9%32.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource 12991140DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%26.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —74%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —634Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —16.5%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
CodeforcesSource 2919.0—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.4%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%54.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%54.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%40.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%49.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%—Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%62.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
CritPtSource 10.0%0.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
MRCRv2Source —72.2%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource 46.2%—Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%—Not comparable
GPQASource 89.1%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%36.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%83.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource 33.5%17.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%6.9%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%30.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%33.5%Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite leads
Math
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%—Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteResult
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite 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 coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 63.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

DeepSeek Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.