Model Comparison
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
vs. Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Google
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
39.8 reasoning / $0.15/1M
Lowest Price
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning)
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
47.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
34.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) is 5.0x cheaper on input tokens than V3.2 (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) by 7.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) by 9.7 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) wins 9 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | De V3.2 (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.50/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.60/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.78/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | |
| Release Date | Dec 1, 2025 | Jun 3, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 154.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 869ms |
| Latency | — | 13784ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 22.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 47.1 | 39.8 |
| Intelligence | 32.1 | 29.2 |
| Coding | 34.6 | 24.9 |
| Math | 59.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.1% | 75.3% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.7% | — |
| HLE | 10.5% | 14.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 59.3% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 59.0% | — |
| SciCode | 38.7% | 38.2% |
| LCR | 39.0% | 55.3% |
| IFBench | 49.0% | 73.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 78.9% | 36.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 32.6% | 18.2% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 47.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V3.2 (Non-reasoning) reaches a 34.6 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
V3.2 (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Gemma 4 12B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
