DeepSeek vs Google · synced 2026-08-11

deepseek-v4-flash vs gemini-3.6-flash

deepseek-v4-flash is 10.7× cheaper on input than gemini-3.6-flash.

deepseek-v4-flash gemini-3.6-flash
Input / 1M $0.14 $1.50
Cached input / 1M $0.003 $0.15
Output / 1M $0.28 $7.50
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 8K 66K
Provider DeepSeek Google
Vision No Yes
Tool calling Yes Yes
Token count estimated estimated

Capability for the money

Independent measurement · Artificial Analysis · read 2026-08-11

gemini-3.6-flash costs 17.1× more than deepseek-v4-flash without measurably beating it on hard reasoning (GPQA Diamond), the only test both have sat — on that evidence the extra spend buys nothing you can point at.

  1. Hard reasoning

    graduate-level science and multi-step analysis

    GPQA Diamond
    deepseek-v4-flash90.8%
    gemini-3.6-flash92.8%

    gemini-3.6-flash +2.0

Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, deepseek-v4-flash returns 518.9 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 30.9 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.

Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. No published following instructions, coding or tool use score for one of these models, so those lenses are omitted. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.

Which to pick

List price is not production cost. Output length, cache hit rate, retries and task quality move the real number more than the headline rate does — price your own prompt on the token ledger before deciding.

Related comparisons