Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) vs Gemma 4 E2B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) unranked (Not scored); Gemma 4 E2B #162 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Gemma 4 E2B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max); 1 to Gemma 4 E2B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
- 35
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window; Gemma 4 E2B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 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
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Gemma 4 E2B 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.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
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 | Gemma 4 E2B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1 | Margin← 3.2 | Gemma 4 E2B56.9 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured |
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 90.1%B 43.4%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 46.7GPQA: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 90.1%; Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 87.5%B 60%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 27.5MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 87.5%; Gemma 4 E2B scored 60%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemma 4 E2B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Gemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 E2B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not available | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not available | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1M | Gemma 4 E2B128K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemma 4 E2B | 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% | 20.8% | 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 |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemma 4 E2B | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.0% | 20.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemma 4 E2B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.5% | 60% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| SimpleQASource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 90.1% | 43.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 44.3% | 9.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.8% | 37.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 35.9% | 4.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.0% | -24.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.3% | 6.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 94.0% | 32.9% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 50.0% | — | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) | Gemma 4 E2B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 76.5% | 35.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Gemma 4 E2B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) and Gemma 4 E2B 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 knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) or Gemma 4 E2B?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 56.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.