DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 3.6 Flash
DeepSeek V4 Pro 
Gemini 3.6 Flash Verdict
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 61.7.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, instruction following, long context, reasoning.
- Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) is stronger in knowledge, maths, human preference, multimodal.
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is 2.8× cheaper ($0.544 vs $1.50 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) streams 2.3× faster (186 vs 81 tokens per second).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) | Gemini 3.6 Flash (high) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 64.2 | 61.7 |
| Agents & tools score | 70.2 | 53.7 |
| Coding score | 58.8 | 58.7 |
| Composite score | 75.0 | 59.9 |
| Instruction following score | 74.3 | – |
| Knowledge score | 58.1 | 66.7 |
| Long context score | 66.6 | 66.5 |
| Maths score | 53.7 | 61.4 |
| Reasoning score | 70.9 | 64.5 |
| Human preference score | – | 68.2 |
| Multimodal score | – | 66.7 |
| Blended price $/M | $0.544 | $1.50 |
| Output speed | 81 tok/s | 186 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 55.6 s | 17.1 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1.0M |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.7% | 94.1% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 45.3% | 59.0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 21.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 96.7% | 94.2% |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | 77.6% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47.0% | 66.2% |
| SciCode | 50.0% | 52.7% |
| WeirdML | 48.9% | 56.1% |
| ProofBench | 16.0% | – |
| LMArena Text | – | 1480 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | – | 1500 |
| LMArena Coding | – | 1517 |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1537 |
| LMArena Vision | – | 1300 |
| LMArena Agent | – | -5.9 |
| LiveBench | – | 73.6% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 85.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 77.9% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 43.4% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 86.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 63.0% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 83.9% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 75.4% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 36.3 | 34.3 |
| IFBench | 76.5% | – |
| AA-LCR | 80.3% | 80.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 83.2% |
| AA-Omniscience | 0.8 | 22.1 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 46.2% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.8% | 92.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 41.0% | 40.8% |
| SciCode (AA) | 51.0% | 53.4% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 96.2% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 87.5% | 88.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.3% | 89.3% |
| IOI | – | 35.1% |
| LegalBench | 80.3% | 86.7% |
| CorpFin | 61.4% | 63.3% |
| TaxEval | 72.1% | 74.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 73.8% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 77.4% | 79.6% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 89.4% | 93.4% |
| Vals Index | 42.9 | 55.4 |
| AIME 2026 | 96.7% | – |
| HMMT February 2026 | 93.9% | – |
| MathArena Apex | 28.1% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | – | 91.2% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | – | 60.4% |
| CritPt | 18.0% | 10.6% |
| GDPval (AA) | 49.7% | 41.6% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 39.6% | 29.9% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | 38.3% | – |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 18.8% | – |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | 24.3% | – |
| BioMysteryBench | – | 58.5% |
| CaseLaw v2 | 59.4% | – |
| Code Migration | 26.2% | 30.9% |
| CyberBench | – | 48.5% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | 51.6% | 65.4% |
| Finance Agent v2 | 44.1% | 56.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | 3.8% | 3.3% |
| Legal Research Bench | 23.1% | 25.0% |
| MedCode | 40.5% | 53.1% |
| MedScribe | 75.1% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | – | 88.4% |
| MortgageTax | – | 67.6% |
| ProgramBench | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Public Benefits Bench | 62.9% | 56.6% |
| SAGE | – | 48.7% |
| SkillsBench | 51.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 4.5% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 1.4% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | – | 65.1% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 49.9% | 64.0% |
| LMArena Maths | – | 1504 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | – | 1470 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | – | 1473 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | – | 1485 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | – | 1487 |
| LMArena Document | – | 1453 |
| Chess Puzzles | 20.0% | 40.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | – | 30.0% |
| DeepSWE | – | 46.7% |
| LMCA | 41.2% | 44.9% |
| DTBench | 90.7% | 95.5% |
| CursorBench | – | 53.5% |
| ALE-Bench | – | 715.5 |
| GDP.pdf | – | 14.0% |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DeepSeek V4 Pro vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: questions
- Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Gemini 3.6 Flash?
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 61.7. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Gemini 3.6 Flash for coding?
- DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in coding (59 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is DeepSeek V4 Pro better than Gemini 3.6 Flash for agentic tasks?
- DeepSeek V4 Pro scores higher in agentic tasks (70 vs 54 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
- DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper: $0.544 against $1.50 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, DeepSeek V4 Pro or Gemini 3.6 Flash?
- Gemini 3.6 Flash streams faster: 186 against 81 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Gemini 3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1.0M against 1M tokens.