New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.7 Flash

vs

Which one, when

Both are text-out models with roughly the same context (1000000 tokens for deepseek-v4.1-flash, 1048576 for gemini-3.7-flash), so the real split is price, output length and input modalities. Pick deepseek-v4.1-flash for high-volume text and image work: $0.3 input and $1.2 output are 2.5x and about 3.1x cheaper than Gemini's $0.75 and $3.75, and its 393216-token max output is six times the 65536 ceiling, which matters for long generations. Pick gemini-3.7-flash when you need audio or video in, priced at $0.75 per million audio input tokens with $0.075 cached reads.

Benchmarks

LeadsAbove averageNo peer higherDeepSeek V4.1 Flash516 / 194 / 19Gemini 3.7 Flash017 / 243 / 24

5 measured on both.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Gemini 3.7 Flash other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
Terminal-Bench 2.1
no peer scored higher 90.6%
85.8%
BioMysteryBench hard
N/A
43.5%
OSWorld 2.0
N/A
47.9%
Cybergym
no peer scored higher 88.1%
N/A
Finance Agent v2
N/A
59%
Harvey Lab-AA
N/A
90.7%
GPQA Diamond
90.9%
N/A
AutomationBench (v1.0.6)
no peer scored higher 54.8%
52.3%
LVBench
N/A
no peer scored higher 85.4%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Gemini 3.7 Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $0.3 $0.75 0.4×
Output / 1M tokens $1.2 $3.75 0.32×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.03 $0.075 0.4×
Cache write no separate charge - -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 69 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Gemini 3.7 Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control yes - vendor dial not published yes - vendor dial not published
Structured output - yes
Prompt caching implicit (automatic) implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) not published
Minimum cached prefix not published 4096 tokens

Specs

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Gemini 3.7 Flash
Input modalities text image text image audio video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-10 2026-08-13
Knowledge cutoff - 2026-03
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 393K 66K

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · Gemini 3.7 Flash

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning changed the unit economics: the model now spends extra billable tokens internally to “think” before producing the answer, and those reasoning tokens are charged like output tokens even though users never see them. That added token generation—plus longer contexts and occasional retries on harder prompts—roughly doubled our cost per request. We can control this by capping reasoning depth, routing only complex queries to reasoning models, and caching common prompts to bring the bill back down.

out 423 tok (+327 thinking) latency 14.6 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a high volume of invisible "thinking tokens" behind the scenes to deliberate and solve complex logic before delivering a final response. Because our vendor bills strictly on token volume, this additional internal computation effectively doubled our billable output per query. In short, our costs increased because we are now paying for the extra compute capacity required to produce significantly higher-accuracy answers.

out 878 tok (+799 thinking) latency 6.9 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` is counting equal adjacent pairs, not elements in the current run: every time `xs[i] == xs[i - 1]`, the run length increases by one element, but the first element of the run was never counted, so all runs are undercounted by one. Also, `best` starts at `0`, so single-element inputs return `0` instead of `1`, and a one-element run ending at the last index is missed entirely.

out 918 tok (+733 thinking) latency 11.4 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

Here is the corrected function: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` ### Explanation of the Bug The original function tracked equal adjacent transitions instead of the actual number of elements in a run, causing all non-empty run lengths to be undercounted by one (e.g., returning `0` instead of `1` for single-element lists because the loop never executes, and `1` instead of `2` for pairs). Initializing both `best` and `cur` to `1` (after handling empty inputs) and resetting `cur` to `1` on a mismatch ensures every individual element is counted as a valid run of at least length one.

out 1050 tok (+827 thinking) latency 6.4 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld pending the Q4 close"

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":"withheld pending the Q4 close"}

out 1707 tok (+1667 thinking) latency 15.1 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "withheld"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": "withheld" } ```

out 918 tok (+858 thinking) latency 6.2 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash passed · 116 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Cache for our API gateway. It stores identical prompt requests and their responses across supported model providers, then serves cached results when a match is found. Teams can cut duplicate inference costs, reduce latency, and keep behavior consistent during provider failover. The cache works with configurable TTLs, per-route rules, and cache-key controls, so you decide what is reusable and what must stay fresh. Does your application send the same prompts to multiple providers? Now your gateway can answer many of those calls without another upstream request. Existing observability dashboards show hit rates, saved tokens, and estimated spend reduction. Enable it in the gateway console, set your policy, and start caching today.

out 917 tok (+770 thinking) latency 9.0 s

Gemini 3.7 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Why pay twice for identical AI queries simply because you routed them to different model vendors? Today, we introduce Universal Prompt Caching directly within our unified API gateway architecture. This capability stores repeated prompt contexts across OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models, instantly returning stored results to eliminate redundant computation fees. When your application sends an LLM request, the gateway inspects the payload, identifies semantic matches, and returns accurate cached responses in under ten milliseconds. Engineering teams can now slash inference latency by eighty percent while dramatically reducing monthly token expenditures across diverse production deployments. You retain complete privacy control, flexible cache eviction policies, and granular metrics through a single dashboard. Update your routing settings today to accelerate overall system performance.

out 2858 tok (+2718 thinking) latency 14.1 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="deepseek-v4.1-flash",
    # model="gemini-3.7-flash",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Gemini 3.7 Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.3 vs $0.75, 2.5× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test DeepSeek V4.1 Flash against Gemini 3.7 Flash without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Gemini 3.7 Flash support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies