DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGemini 3.8 Flash
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | Gemini 3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.22 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $0.66 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.007 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.05OpenInference | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.16OpenInference | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 82.7% | 89.4% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 38% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 71% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | — | 19.1% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | 70.3% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 73.2% | — |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 76.7% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 34.8% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)Multidisciplinary reasoning — The re-checked edition of Humanity's Last Exam: the same extremely hard expert questions, minus the ones found to be flawed or wrongly answered. Scores on it run lower than on the original exam, so read the two as separate tests rather than a before-and-after. Higher is better. | — | 54.9% |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | — | 56.5% |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | — | 88.8% |
LAB-Bench 2Biology — Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | — | 86.2% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 59% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 25.1% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | — | 61.4% |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | — | 10% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1545 |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 86.2% |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | — | 35% |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | — | 87.1% |
LVBench · agenticVideo understanding — The same long-video test, run with the AI free to navigate the video itself — skipping around, replaying sections — rather than being shown it once. Read it as a separate test from the unaided run above. Higher is better. | — | 87.8% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | DeepSeek | |
| Release date | Jul 31 2026 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsClaude Fable 5.1Gemini 3.8 FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.8 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.8 FlashvsMuse GlimmerDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGrok 4.6DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsMistral Medium 3.5Gemini 3.8 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731vsKimi K3Gemini 3.8 FlashvsKimi K3
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.8 Flash leads DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.1). Only DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 has a verified first-party API price: $0.22 per million input tokens and $0.66 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.8 Flash. DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 shipped 33 days before Gemini 3.8 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads at 89.4% vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 at 82.7%.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 was released by DeepSeek on Jul 31 2026.
Gemini 3.8 Flash was released by Google on Sep 2 2026.
Gemini 3.8 Flash leads on Terminal-Bench 2.1 — DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 82.7% vs Gemini 3.8 Flash 89.4%.
Only DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 has a verified first-party API price: $0.22 per million input tokens and $0.66 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.8 Flash. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.