DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3 14B
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 54 and 52 on our weighted score.
DeepSeekDeepSeek-V3.1
54/100- ECI139.9
- Price$0.385 / $1.25
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
65/100- ECI134.7
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 14B
52/100- ECI138.2
- Price$0.35 / $1.40
- Context131K
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against DeepSeek-V3.1 (54) and Qwen3 14B (52). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek-V3.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
- CapabilityDeepSeek-V3.1Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek-V3.1 139.9 · Qwen3 14B 138.2 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceDeepSeek-V3.1DeepSeek-V3.1 $0.601 · Qwen3 14B $0.613 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Gemini 2.0 Flash unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek-V3.1 131,072 · Qwen3 14B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashDeepSeek-V3.1: Text · Gemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3 14B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek-V3.1 and Qwen3 14BPublishes downloadable weights (MIT License)
| Measure | Weight | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Gemini 2.0 Flash | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 67% | 65 | 59 | 63 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 35 | 90 | 35 |
| Context window | 13% | 24 | 61 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 65/100 | 52/100 |
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-V3.1DeepSeek | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | Qwen3 14BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.9 (best) | 134.7 | 138.2 |
| ECI rank | #100 of 148 (best) | #116 of 148 | #107 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | — | 63.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | — | 66.4% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.385 | — | $0.35 (best) |
| Output | $1.25 (best) | — | $1.40 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.601 (best) | — | $0.613 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 8 providers | — | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 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 | OpenMIT License | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | qwen3-14b |
| API providers | 8 (best) | — | 1 |
| Released | Aug 21, 2025 | Dec 11, 2024 | Apr 29, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 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-V3.1$6.35
- Gemini 2.0 Flash—
- Qwen3 14B$6.30
Which should you choose?
Which is better: DeepSeek-V3.1, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Qwen3 14B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against DeepSeek-V3.1 (54) and Qwen3 14B (52). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek-V3.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-V3.1, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Qwen3 14B?
DeepSeek-V3.1 is cheaper at $0.385 input / $1.25 output per million tokens (median across 8 API providers). Qwen3 14B costs $0.35 input / $1.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.601 per million tokens for DeepSeek-V3.1 versus $0.613 for Qwen3 14B (1× as much). Gemini 2.0 Flash has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek-V3.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek-V3.1 139.9 (#100 of 148), Qwen3 14B 138.2 (#107 of 148) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#116 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (136.1–143.3 vs 133.5–140.1), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek-V3.1, Gemini 2.0 Flash and Qwen3 14B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek-V3.1 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 DeepSeek-V3.1 and 131,072 for Qwen3 14B. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek-V3.1 up to 8,192, Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, Qwen3 14B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
DeepSeek-V3.1 accepts text; Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3 14B accepts text. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek-V3.1 and Qwen3 14B publishes its weights (MIT License) and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek-V3.1 is the newest, released Aug 21, 2025. Qwen3 14B came out Apr 29, 2025; Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024, Qwen3 14B 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-V3.1 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- DeepSeek-V3.1 vs GPT OSS 120BOpenAI · ECI 140.0
- DeepSeek-V3.1 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.5
- 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
