Model comparison

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Data verified July 23, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)

DeepSeek

55.47/100

Margin

2.5pts

winning →

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Google

57.96/100

1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Gemma 4 26B A4B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 3 to Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Updated July 23, 2026

Shared results: 17
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only: 21
Gemma 4 26B A4B only: 3
Comparable categories: 1 / 8

Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Gemma 4 26B A4B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 57.96 versus 55.47. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 26B A4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

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 Gemma 4 26B A4B
Category	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Δ	Gemma 4 26B A4B
Knowledge	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0	Margin← 13.6	Gemma 4 26B A4B43.4
Agentic	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6	MarginNo overlap	Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured
Coding	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8	MarginNo overlap	Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured
Math	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0	MarginNo overlap	Gemma 4 26B A4BNot measured
Multimodal	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Gemma 4 26B A4B73.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

A · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)B · Gemma 4 26B A4B

HLE
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 34.5%B 17.2%
Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 17.3
HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 17.2%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
MMLU-Pro
Knowledge
Source ↗
A 87.1%B 82.6%
Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 4.5
MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 82.6%. 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)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output	Gemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 output	Gemma 4 26B A4B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per second	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available	Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available	Gemma 4 26B A4BNot available	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M	Gemma 4 26B A4B256K	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic

9 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	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%	43.6%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource	39.9%	13.1%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
GDPval-AASource	1299	761	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource	34.4%	11.0%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads

Coding

7 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Result
CodeforcesSource	2919.0	—	Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	79.4%	—	Not comparable
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%	40.0%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA Coding IndexSource	58.7%	39.3%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads

Reasoning

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Result
MRCR 1MSource	83.3%	—	Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource	56.5%	—	Not comparable
AA-LCRSource	65.0%	55.7%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
CritPtSource	10.0%	0.0%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads

KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins

13 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Result
MMLU-ProSource	87.1%	82.6%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
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%	17.2%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	43.1%	25.7%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	90.5%	79.2%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-HLESource	33.5%	18.3%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	-9.7%	-48.1%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	41.8%	18.2%	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	88.6%	80.9%	Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
HLE w/o toolsSource	—	8.7%	Not comparable

Math

4 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source	94.0%	—	Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource	88.0%	—	Not comparable
ApexSource	27.4%	—	Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource	85.5%	—	Not comparable

Multimodal

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource	1264	—	Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource	—	73.8%	Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource	—	69.2%	Not comparable

Inst. Following

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)	Gemma 4 26B A4B	Result
AA-IFBenchSource	71.3%	72.4%	Gemma 4 26B A4B leads

Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

Gemma 4 26B A4B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.96 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 17.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemma 4 26B A4B?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 43.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index 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 23, 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.