InferenceRate Live Token Economics
Compare Cost
Home / Compare / DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Live Unit Economics, Prompt Cache Pricing, TTFT Latency & Multi-Benchmark Analysis

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) Specs → Gemini 2.5 Flash Specs →
🔄 Pivot Matchup:
VS
💰 Unit Cost Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) $0.22/1M in · $0.65/1M out
⚡ Latency & Speed Winner Gemini 2.5 Flash 110ms TTFT · 180 tok/s
💻 Coding (SWE) Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) 77.4% SWE-bench · 94.5% HumanEval
🧠 STEM Reasoning Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) 91.3% GPQA · 96.4% MATH-500

Which model is better: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 26.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (200ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 180 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 91.3% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.

Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)

Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.

Metric / Dimension DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) Gemini 2.5 Flash Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens $0.22 $0.30 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 1.4x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens $0.65 $2.50 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (74.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M $0.007 $0.030 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 4.3x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M $0.22 $0.30 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 1.4x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output) 1,049k (128k out) 1,049k (66k out) Equal Context Window
Avg TTFT Response Latency 310ms 110ms Gemini 2.5 Flash (200ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput) 165 tok/s 180 tok/s Gemini 2.5 Flash (+15 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding) 77.4% 58% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+19.4% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM) 91.3% 70.5% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+20.8% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline) 87.3% 82% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+5.3% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic) 96.4% 89% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+7.4% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR) 81.6 / 100 66.6 / 100 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+15 pts)

Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster

Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.

25.0M Tokens
500K 50M 250M 500M+
5.0M Tokens
100K 25M 75M 150M+
50% Cached
0% (Uncached) 25% 50% (Typical Agent) 95% Max

Estimated Monthly Spend

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) $6.09

$0.22/1M in · $0.65/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.007/1M read · $0.22/1M write

Gemini 2.5 Flash $16.63

$0.30/1M in · $2.50/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.030/1M read · $0.30/1M write

Projected Monthly Cost Reduction
$10.54 / mo
(63.4% lower cost with DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp))
Open Full Matchup Analysis →
A

When to Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (DeepSeek) for ultra-low-cost open-weight multimodal MoE built for high-throughput visual document OCR, chart interpretation, and real-time autonomous coding agents — offering a 1,048k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $0.22/1M input pricing ($0.007/1M cached reads).

Explore all DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) provider endpoints →
B

When to Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash

Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google) for cost-efficient 1M-context summarization, multimodal extraction, and interactive assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 110ms TTFT, and $0.30/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).

Explore all Gemini 2.5 Flash provider endpoints →

Related Questions & Decision Factors

Which is cheaper: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is cheaper at $0.22/1M input tokens ($0.65/1M output) compared to $0.30/1M input ($2.50/1M output) for Gemini 2.5 Flash.

Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers faster first-token latency at 110ms TTFT (180 tok/s throughput) compared to 310ms TTFT (165 tok/s) for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp).

How do DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) and Gemini 2.5 Flash compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?

On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) scores 77.4% versus 58% for Gemini 2.5 Flash. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) scores 91.3% versus 70.5% for Gemini 2.5 Flash (and 96.4% vs 89% on MATH-500).

When should you choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)?

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (DeepSeek) for ultra-low-cost open-weight multimodal MoE built for high-throughput visual document OCR, chart interpretation, and real-time autonomous coding agents — offering a 1,048k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $0.22/1M input pricing ($0.007/1M cached reads).

When should you choose Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Choose Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google) for cost-efficient 1M-context summarization, multimodal extraction, and interactive assistants — offering a 1,048k context window, 110ms TTFT, and $0.30/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).

Explore High-Priority Related Model Matchups

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) vs Gemini 4 Argon
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) cheaper Δ 19 IVR →
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 2.5 Flash cheaper Δ 4 IVR →
Claude 4.5 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) cheaper Δ 25.1 IVR →
Claude 4.5 Sonnet vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash cheaper Δ 10.1 IVR →
Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) cheaper Δ 23.8 IVR →
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash cheaper Δ 8.8 IVR →