Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Gemma 4 31B
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Gemma 4 31B #43 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Gemma 4 31B share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 11 to Gemma 4 31B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 20
- Gemma 4 31B only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 5 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
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 61.08 to 55.47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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 31B. 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 31B.
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 | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | Margin← 28.2 | Gemma 4 31B41.6 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | Margin← 4.1 | Gemma 4 31B52.9 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31BNot measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31BNot measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 31B76.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 34.5%B 26.5%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 8HLE: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%; Gemma 4 31B scored 26.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.1%B 84.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 4.8GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%; Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.1%B 85.2%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 1.9MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%; Gemma 4 31B scored 85.2%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemma 4 31B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Gemma 4 31B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 31B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Gemma 4 31BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Gemma 4 31B256K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemma 4 31B | 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% | 59.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 15.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 804 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 14.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 35.26% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 28.3% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 37.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 15.1% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 36.4% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemma 4 31B | 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% | 43.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 43.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | — | 41.6% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 75.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | 85.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | 84.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 34.5% | 26.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 29.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 85.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 22.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | -45.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 19.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 81.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 19.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 38.9% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemma 4 31B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 75.6% | Gemma 4 31B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemma 4 31B?
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 61.08 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 34.5% and 26.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemma 4 31B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57 versus 52.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemma 4 31B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.