Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
DeepSeek logo
Model A
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

DeepSeek

66.35/100

Estimated · Public rank #35

90% interval 54.8–77.9

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Google logo
Model B
Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

70/100

Supported · Public rank #22

90% interval 65.0–75.1

Decision reading

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70 versus 66.35, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

14 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Gemini 3.5 Flash

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads on the public coding lane, 57.7 to 52.2, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads on the public agentic lane, 56.1 to 50.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
14
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 only
25
Gemini 3.5 Flash only
13
Like-for-like categories
2 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
56.1
Supported · #37/151
Gemini 3.5 Flash
50.6
Supported · #61/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 11 vs 8 public rows
Reading
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
52.2
Supported · #58/183
Gemini 3.5 Flash
57.7
Supported · #34/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 14 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Reasoning

Directional only
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
58.7
#18/22
Gemini 3.5 Flash
60.3
#17/22
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
60.9
Estimated · #37/181
Gemini 3.5 Flash
68.5
Supported · #19/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
80.4
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Gemini 3.5 Flash
55.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Gemini 3.5 Flash
86.9
#6/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not ranked
Gemini 3.5 Flash
86.9
#34/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.00087
Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.006
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.02436
Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.102
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.01812
Fits in one request
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

$0.003625 per 1M cached input tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Reasoning

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Proprietary

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

License

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Proprietary

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

2026-08-13

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70 versus 66.35, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.02436 vs $0.102. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.01812 vs $0.15.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence52 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081360.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081373.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081351.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • CyberGym

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081374.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081325.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081331.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081354.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081393.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 08133206.0
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081380.6%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081355.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081376.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.93%
    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-FullStack

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081371.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081396.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • cursorBench31

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • CorpusQA 1M

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCRv2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081357.9%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081384.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • HLE

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081342.7%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081392.4%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.0%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%
    Source

    Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081395.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081389.8%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081338.3%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.2%
    Source
    Gemini 3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Blueprint-Bench 2

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—
    Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 70 versus 66.35, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash leads the public coding lane, 57.7 to 52.2, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 56.1 to 50.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00087 on DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 and $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash; repository review costs $0.02436 and $0.102; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.01812 and $0.15. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 or Gemini 3.5 Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.