DeepSeek V3 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
At a Glance
| Compare |  DeepSeek V3DeepSeek |  Gemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogle DeepMind |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #39 of 4617.6 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #8 of 44$0.029 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #32 of 3846.2 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.2574Openrouter ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.30Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.89Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 | $2.50Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 164K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,332.3993% of row best · rating · deepseek-v3; 95% CI [1327.66209525, 1337.12686082]; votes 21770; rank 209 | 1,435.54100% of row best · rating · gemini-3.5-flash-lite; 95% CI [1430.59505493, 1440.49024696]; votes 26165; rank 79 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | DeepSeek-V3 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | DeepSeek | Google DeepMind |
| Family | Deepseek V3 | Gemini 3 |
| Model | DeepSeek-V3 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
| Version | DeepSeek-V3 | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2024-12-26 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Audio, Document |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 164K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 684.5B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | 37B | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
DeepSeek V3 Capabilities
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs | DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | family variantstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext |
DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
DeepSeek V3 vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite FAQs
Is DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?+
DeepSeek V3 is $0.2574 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is $0.30 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V3 is cheaper on this metric. DeepSeek V3 is $0.89 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is $2.50 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V3 is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?+
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has the larger sourced context window. DeepSeek V3 supports 164K and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite be self-hosted?+
DeepSeek V3 is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. DeepSeek V3 is open weight; Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is not marked open weight.
Can DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite understand images?+
DeepSeek V3 is not documented with image input; Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. DeepSeek V3 is — and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is 66K.
Do DeepSeek V3 and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite support reasoning and tool use?+
DeepSeek V3: none of these features are definitively sourced. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?+
DeepSeek V3 has 3 sourced provider routes; Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 2, so DeepSeek V3 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, DeepSeek V3 or Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.