ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 58 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is 13× cheaper per token.

  1. DeepSeek

    DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B

    Released May 29, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.09
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B
  2. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Flash

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    68/100
    • ECI140.6
    • Price$0.30 / $2.50
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Flash is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8BDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B $0.068 · Gemini 2.5 Flash $0.85 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 FlashGemini 2.5 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 FlashDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8BPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8BGemini 2.5 Flash
Price50%10051
Inputs & features30%10100
Context window20%2561
Overall100%58/10068/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationDeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8BDeepSeekGemini 2.5 FlashGoogle
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—140.6
ECI rank—#110 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions9.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics43.9%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.06 (best)$0.30
Output$0.09 (best)$2.50
Cached input—$0.03
Blended (3:1)$0.068 (best)$0.85
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial Google API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)
Max output32,000 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoYes
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingNoYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenMITProprietary
API model ID—gemini-2.5-flash
API providers132 (best)
ReleasedMay 29, 2025Jun 17, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Jan 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B$0.78
  • Gemini 2.5 Flash$8.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B (58). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B or Gemini 2.5 Flash?

DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.09 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Gemini 2.5 Flash costs $0.30 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.068 per million tokens for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B versus $0.85 for Gemini 2.5 Flash (13× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash has an ECI of 140.6.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B and Gemini 2.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B up to 32,000, Gemini 2.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. DeepSeek R1 0528 Qwen3 8B came out May 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.5 Flash Jan 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons