Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) vs Gemini 3 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) unranked (Not scored); Gemini 3 Flash #49 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Gemini 3 Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max); 6 to Gemini 3 Flash.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
- 35
- Gemini 3 Flash only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) makes more sense if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill; Gemini 3 Flash is the better fit if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 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
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Gemini 3 Flash 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 Flash is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.50 input / $3.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max). That is roughly 3.4x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3 Flash 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 (Max) | Δ | Gemini 3 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2 | Margin← 67.4 | Gemini 3 Flash27.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3 FlashNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemini 3 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Gemini 3 Flash$0.5 input / $3 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not available | Gemini 3 Flash159 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not available | Gemini 3 Flash1.19 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1M | Gemini 3 Flash1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 48.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1307 | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 51.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 36.4% | — | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 96.2% | 43.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 40.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 932 | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 40.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 25.8% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 64% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 49.2% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.63% | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | — | 11.4% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 3206.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 55.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 76.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 67.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 49.93% | 20.20% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.0% | 49.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.3% | 27.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.8% | 81.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 14.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.0% | -3.6% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.3% | 45.5% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 94.0% | 90.2% | Gemini 3 Flash leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 95.2% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 89.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 38.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 90.2% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 35.640% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 4.167% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemini 3 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.5% | 55.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Gemini 3 Flash?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Gemini 3 Flash 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 math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Gemini 3 Flash?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.2 versus 27.8. Gemini 3 Flash 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.