Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Deepseek
Deepseek
vs
Google
Google

DeepSeek V3.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

114 out of our 303 tracked models have had a price change in February.

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

Key Takeaways

DeepSeek V3.1 wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding

Gemini 2.5 Flash wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
DeepSeek V3.1
Benchmark Advantage
DeepSeek V3.1
Context Window
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Speed
Gemini 2.5 Flash

Pricing Comparison

Price Comparison

MetricDeepSeek V3.1Gemini 2.5 FlashWinner
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.15$0.30 DeepSeek V3.1
Output (per 1M tokens)$0.75$2.50 DeepSeek V3.1
Cache Read (per 1M)N/A$0.03 Gemini 2.5 Flash
Cache Write (per 1M)N/A$0.08 Gemini 2.5 Flash
Using a 3:1 input/output ratio, DeepSeek V3.1 is 65% cheaper overall.

DeepSeek V3.1 Providers

Chutes $0.20 (Cheapest)
DeepInfra $0.21
SiliconFlow $0.27
Novita $0.27
AtlasCloud $0.30

Gemini 2.5 Flash Providers

Vercel $0.30 (Cheapest)
Google AI Studio $0.30 (Cheapest)
Google $0.30 (Cheapest)

Benchmark Comparison

8
Benchmarks Compared
5
DeepSeek V3.1 Wins
1
Gemini 2.5 Flash Wins

Benchmark Scores

BenchmarkDeepSeek V3.1Gemini 2.5 FlashWinner
Intelligence Index
Overall intelligence score
28.121.1
Coding Index
Code generation & understanding
28.417.8
Math Index
Mathematical reasoning
49.760.3
MMLU Pro
Academic knowledge
83.380.9
GPQA
Graduate-level science
73.568.3
LiveCodeBench
Competitive programming
57.749.5
Aider
Real-world code editing
-55.1-
AIME
Competition math
-50.0-
DeepSeek V3.1 significantly outperforms in coding benchmarks.

Cost vs Quality

X-axis:
Y-axis:
Loading chart...
DeepSeek V3.1
Other models

Context & Performance

Context Window

DeepSeek V3.1
32,768
tokens
Max output: 7,168 tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash
1,048,576
tokens
Max output: 65,535 tokens
Gemini 2.5 Flash has a 97% larger context window.

Speed Performance

MetricDeepSeek V3.1Gemini 2.5 FlashWinner
Tokens/second0.0 tok/s246.2 tok/s
Time to First Token0.00s0.47s
Gemini 2.5 Flash responds Infinity% faster on average.

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureDeepSeek V3.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyDeepSeek V3.1Gemini 2.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
AuthorDeepseekGoogle
ReleasedAug 2025Jun 2025

DeepSeek V3.1 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Gemini 2.5 Flash Modalities

Input
fileimagetextaudiovideo
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare DeepSeek V3.1 with:

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

DeepSeek V3.1 has cheaper input pricing at $0.15/M tokens. DeepSeek V3.1 has cheaper output pricing at $0.75/M tokens.
DeepSeek V3.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 28.4, compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash's score of 17.8.
DeepSeek V3.1 has a 32,768 token context window, while Gemini 2.5 Flash has a 1,048,576 token context window.
DeepSeek V3.1 does not support vision. Gemini 2.5 Flash supports vision.