DeepSeek-R1 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3 235B-A22B
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 53 and 53 on our weighted score.
DeepSeekDeepSeek-R1
53/100- ECI139.0
- Price$0.70 / $2.60
- Context128K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 235B-A22B
53/100- ECI139.4
- Price$0.70 / $2.80
- Context131K
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B (53) and DeepSeek-R1 (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityQwen3 235B-A22BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 235B-A22B 139.4 · DeepSeek-R1 139.0 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceDeepSeek-R1DeepSeek-R1 $1.18 · Qwen3 235B-A22B $1.23 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3 235B-A22B 131,072 · DeepSeek-R1 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashDeepSeek-R1: Text · Gemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3 235B-A22B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3 235B-A22BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek-R1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash | Qwen3 235B-A22B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 64 | 59 | 65 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 35 | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 13% | 24 | 61 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 65/100 | 53/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | Qwen3 235B-A22BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.0 | 134.7 | 139.4 (best) |
| ECI rank | #104 of 148 | #116 of 148 | #103 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 71.7% (best) | — | 70.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 53.3% | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.70 | — | $0.70 |
| Output | $2.60 (best) | — | $2.80 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.18 (best) | — | $1.23 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 11 providers | — | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 16,384 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | qwen3-235b-a22b |
| API providers | 12 (best) | — | 7 |
| Released | Jan 20, 2025 | Dec 11, 2024 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jul 2024 | Jun 2024 | Apr 2025 |
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$12.20
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
- Qwen3 235B-A22B$12.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B (53) and DeepSeek-R1 (53). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Qwen3 235B-A22B?
DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $0.70 input / $2.60 output per million tokens (median across 11 API providers). Qwen3 235B-A22B costs $0.70 input / $2.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.18 per million tokens for DeepSeek-R1 versus $1.23 for Qwen3 235B-A22B (1× as much). Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3 235B-A22B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3 235B-A22B 139.4 (#103 of 148), DeepSeek-R1 139.0 (#104 of 148) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (135.2–140.8 vs 136.2–140.4), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.0 Flash and Qwen3 235B-A22B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3 235B-A22B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.0 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 235B-A22B and 128,000 for DeepSeek-R1. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek-R1 up to 32,768, Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, Qwen3 235B-A22B up to 16,384 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek-R1 accepts text; Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3 235B-A22B accepts text. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3 235B-A22B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 235B-A22B is the newest, released Apr 28, 2025. DeepSeek-R1 came out Jan 20, 2025; Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek-R1 Jul 2024, Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, Qwen3 235B-A22B Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- DeepSeek-R1 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- DeepSeek-R1 vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- DeepSeek-R1 vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic · ECI 133.5
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-V3DeepSeek · ECI 132.3
