Model comparison
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated); Gemini 3.1 Pro #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) and Gemini 3.1 Pro share 17 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 21 results are unique to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High); 30 to Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 21
- Gemini 3.1 Pro only
- 30
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemini 3.1 Pro only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.47 versus 55.3. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 31.8.
Gemini 3.1 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $12.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 13.8x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Gemini 3.1 Pro is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Δ | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 | Margin← 62.2 | Gemini 3.1 Pro31.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Coding | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Reasoning | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 ProNot measured |
| Multimodal | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemini 3.1 Pro82.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | Gemini 3.1 Pro$2 input / $12 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro109 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | Gemini 3.1 Pro29.71 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Gemini 3.1 Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 80.4% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 44.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 74.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 95.6% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 39.9% | 23.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1299 | 965 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 34.4% | 21.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 56.87% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 13.3% | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 16.5% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 53.8% | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CodeforcesSource | 2919.0 | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 54.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 74.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 63.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.4% | 58.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 58.7% | 68.8% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 32.03% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 46.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | 77.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.1% | 94.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLESource | 34.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 43.1% | 46.5% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 90.5% | 94.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 33.5% | 44.7% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -9.7% | 32.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 41.8% | 55.3% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 88.6% | 49.9% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 45.4% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 94.0% | — | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | 88.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 36.900% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 16.700% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1264 | 1281 | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.2% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| ZeroBenchSource | — | 29.0% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 81.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 82.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.3% | 77.1% | Gemini 3.1 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 55.3.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) or Gemini 3.1 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 31.8. Gemini 3.1 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.