Model Comparison

DeepSeek-R1-0528 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

DeepSeek-R1-0528 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Gemini 2.5 Flash is 1.1x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

DeepSeek-R1-0528 outperforms in 5 benchmarks (Aider-Polyglot, AIME 2024, AIME 2025, Humanity's Last Exam, SimpleQA), while Gemini 2.5 Flash is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, SWE-Bench Verified).

DeepSeek-R1-0528 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Fri May 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash costs less

For input processing, DeepSeek-R1-0528 ($0.50/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Gemini 2.5 Flash ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-R1-0528 ($2.15/1M tokens) is 1.2x cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Flash ($2.50/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-R1-0528 is more expensive than Gemini 2.5 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri May 01 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-R1-0528
Input tokens$0.50
Output tokens$2.15
Best providerDeepinfra
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$2.50
Best providerGoogle
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-R1-0528's 131,072 tokens. DeepSeek-R1-0528 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Gemini 2.5 Flash is limited to 65,536 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-R1-0528
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Fri May 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemini 2.5 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-R1-0528 does not.

Gemini 2.5 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

DeepSeek-R1-0528

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek-R1-0528 is licensed under MIT, while Gemini 2.5 Flash uses a proprietary license.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

DeepSeek-R1-0528

MIT

Open weights

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-R1-0528 was released on 2025-05-28, while Gemini 2.5 Flash was released on 2025-05-20.

DeepSeek-R1-0528 is 0 month newer than Gemini 2.5 Flash.

DeepSeek-R1-0528

May 28, 2025

11 months ago

1w newer
Gemini 2.5 Flash

May 20, 2025

11 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.5 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-31, while DeepSeek-R1-0528's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.5 Flash's training data extends to 2025-01-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without DeepSeek-R1-0528's cutoff date.

DeepSeek-R1-0528

—

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Jan 2025

Provider Availability

DeepSeek-R1-0528 is available from DeepInfra, DeepSeek, Novita. Gemini 2.5 Flash is available from Google.

DeepSeek-R1-0528

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.15/1M
deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.55/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.19/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.70/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.50/1M

Gemini 2.5 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

DeepSeek
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights
Higher Aider-Polyglot score (71.6% vs 61.9%)
Higher AIME 2024 score (91.4% vs 88.0%)
Higher AIME 2025 score (87.5% vs 72.0%)
Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (17.7% vs 11.0%)
Higher SimpleQA score (92.3% vs 26.9%)
Google
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Higher GPQA score (82.8% vs 81.0%)
Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (60.4% vs 44.6%)
DeepSeekDeepSeek-R1-0528
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash
Compare in Playground

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-R1-0528
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-R1-0528 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

DeepSeek-R1-0528 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1-0528 is made by DeepSeek and Gemini 2.5 Flash is made by Google. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
DeepSeek-R1-0528 scores MMLU-Redux: 93.4%, SimpleQA: 92.3%, AIME 2024: 91.4%, AIME 2025: 87.5%, MMLU-Pro: 85.0%. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores Global-MMLU-Lite: 88.4%, AIME 2024: 88.0%, FACTS Grounding: 85.3%, GPQA: 82.8%, MMMU: 79.7%.
Gemini 2.5 Flash is 1.7x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-R1-0528 costs $0.50/M input and $2.15/M output via deepinfra. Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30/M input and $2.50/M output via google.
DeepSeek-R1-0528 supports 131K tokens and Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (131K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($0.50 vs $0.30/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (MIT vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
DeepSeek-R1-0528 is developed by DeepSeek and Gemini 2.5 Flash is developed by Google.