Model Comparison
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
vs. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · DeepSeek, Google
Recommended Pick
De V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA
Best Value
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
38.7 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning)
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
56.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
59.4 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
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning) is 4.4x cheaper on input tokens than V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort).
Speed gap
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.9x as many tokens per second as V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort).
Reasoning gap
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) leads Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning) by 17.6 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) wins 9 measurable categories, including Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA, HLE.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick De V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) | Go Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.43/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.87/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.54/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | DeepSeek | |
| Release Date | Apr 24, 2026 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 103.1 tok/s | 200.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1037ms | 360ms |
| Latency | 43474ms | 360ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 46.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 56.3 | 38.7 |
| Intelligence | 44.3 | 6.9 |
| Coding | 59.4 | — |
| Math | — | 35.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 88.8% | 47.4% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 72.4% |
| HLE | 35.9% | 3.7% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 40.0% |
| MATH 500 | — | 92.6% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 35.3% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 50.0% |
| SciCode | 50.0% | 17.7% |
| LCR | 66.3% | 31.3% |
| IFBench | 76.5% | 31.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 96.2% | 19.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 46.2% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort) reaches a 59.4 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
V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
