Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

DeepSeek V3 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro

DeepSeek V3 costs 10.4x less per output token than Gemini 2.5 Pro ($0.9594 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.

DeepSeek V3DeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.9594
1
Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle
Coding
19.1
Overall
41.8
Output $/M
$10.00
10
vs boards won of 11 shared

DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 2.5 Pro: which to pick

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick DeepSeek V3 for output tokens 10.4x cheaper ($0.9594 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by Design Arena: 3D, where it leads.

Shared results
11
DeepSeek V3 only
3
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
79
Like-for-like categories
4 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
DeepSeek V3 not benchmarked, Gemini 2.5 Pro 19.1 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 35.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: DeepSeek V3 48.9% against Gemini 2.5 Pro 84.7%, 35.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
DeepSeek V3 $0.9594 against Gemini 2.5 Pro $10.00 per million output tokens, 10.4x apart.
Context window
DeepSeek V3 takes 164K tokens, Gemini 2.5 Pro 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryDeepSeek V3BarsGemini 2.5 ProTies
Reasoning02
Math01
Web design15
General02
All shared boards110
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index17 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
Aider polyglot70.2%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3 measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured53.6%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SWE-bench Lite30.7%Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1226Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured33.3Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured54.4%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured0.4%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured80.1%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
SciCodeNot measured46.3%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured26.5%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured32.6%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GSO-BenchNot measured3.9%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
WeirdMLNot measured54.0%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1452Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1459Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1235Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1285Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured16.1Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured145.1Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.6Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured54.1%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GDPvalNot measured23.3%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured41.5%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$574Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
BrowseComp-PlusNot measured29.5%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.4%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured22.5%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)71.2%85.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro
ARC-AGINot measured41.0%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured4.9%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1455Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1452Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1453Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1274Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1281Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.3%70.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured87.7Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured87.7%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
OTIS Mock AIME48.9%84.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured24.6%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured0.0%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1450Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1454Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured63.9%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured60.8%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.9%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured50.6%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured86.2%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1480Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1476Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1480Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1439Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
FACTS Benchmark SuiteNot measured61.5%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Web design benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
Design Arena: websites11201167Gemini 2.5 Pro
Design Arena: UI components10901137Gemini 2.5 Pro
Design Arena: game dev10531111Gemini 2.5 Pro
Design Arena: data viz10891222Gemini 2.5 Pro
Design Arena: 3D10861080DeepSeek V3
Design Arena: all code categories11081152Gemini 2.5 Pro
Design Arena: SVG976Not measuredOnly DeepSeek V3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured41.9%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured73.5%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
IFBenchNot measured48.7%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured69.0%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
DTBench62.7%82.4%Gemini 2.5 Pro
LMCA15.2%34.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)Not measured83.8%Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena TextNot measured1458Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1437Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1454Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1263Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1458Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1452Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1507Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1487Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1461Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1434Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1473Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1474Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1461Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1479Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1453Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1449Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1454Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1441Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1261Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1300Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1270Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1262Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1304Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1283Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1265Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
LMArena DocumentNot measured1421Only Gemini 2.5 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Gemini 2.5 ProLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

DeepSeek V3$0.0008Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.0063Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3$0.017Fits in one request
Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.092Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

DeepSeek V3$0.067Exceeds the context window
Gemini 2.5 Pro$0.350Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro
SpecificationDeepSeek V3Google Gemini 2.5 Pro
MakerDeepSeekGoogle
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 26, 2024June 17, 2025
Context window164K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.2887$1.25
Output $/Mtok$0.9594$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked19.1
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.64
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is DeepSeek V3 better than Gemini 2.5 Pro for coding?

Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a coding score, 19.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; DeepSeek V3 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick DeepSeek V3 for output tokens 10.4x cheaper ($0.9594 vs $10.00 per million) and work measured by Design Arena: 3D, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

DeepSeek V3 costs $0.2887 per million input tokens and $0.9594 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for Gemini 2.5 Pro only.

Which has the bigger context window, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

Gemini 2.5 Pro, with 1.05M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks is the DeepSeek V3 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro comparison based on?

11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. DeepSeek V3's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Gemini 2.5 Pro's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next