The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MedGemma 4B IT

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to -4.8.

DeepSeek · Google · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.2 to -4.8, ranking #15 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.2 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose MedGemma 4B IT

  • you are already invested in the Google ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
MedGemma 4B IT
Google
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.2
#15
-4.8
#374
Reasoning
48.8
#18
-5.2
#370
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.30 / M
— / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
MedGemma 4B IT
Vision
32.3#25
-6.8#224
Multimodal
35.0#14
-5.5#183
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 7 for MedGemma 4B IT

No common benchmarks found

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MedGemma 4B ITdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

758.9B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 has 758.9B more parameters than MedGemma 4B IT, making it 17649.0% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
Google
MedGemma 4B IT
4.3Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
4.3B
MedGemma 4B IT

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 specifies output context (393,216 tokens).

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Google
MedGemma 4B IT
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Oct 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MedGemma 4B IT support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

MedGemma 4B IT

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is licensed under MIT, while MedGemma 4B IT uses Health AI Developer Foundations terms of use.

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

MedGemma 4B IT

Health AI Developer Foundations terms of use

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while MedGemma 4B IT was released on 2025-05-20.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 17 months newer than MedGemma 4B IT.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

3 days ago

1.4yr newer
MedGemma 4B IT

May 20, 2025

1.4 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MedGemma 4B IT side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
MedGemma 4B IT
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs MedGemma 4B IT.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or MedGemma 4B IT?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to -4.8. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek and MedGemma 4B IT is made by Google. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 compare to MedGemma 4B IT in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%. MedGemma 4B IT scores MIMIC CXR: 88.9%, DermMCQA: 71.8%, PathMCQA: 69.8%, SlakeVQA: 62.3%, VQA-Rad: 49.9%.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MedGemma 4B IT?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M tokens and MedGemma 4B IT supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MedGemma 4B IT?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.2 vs -4.8), licensing (MIT vs Health AI Developer Foundations terms of use). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and MedGemma 4B IT?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and MedGemma 4B IT is developed by Google.

Related comparisons