Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Qwen3 30B A3B
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 67 to 57 and 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
67/100- ECI134.7
- Price$0.10 / $0.42
- Context1.05M
DeepSeekDeepSeek R1 0528
53/100- ECI141.2
- Price$0.512 / $2.19
- Context164K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 30B A3B
57/100- ECI136.2
- Price$0.108 / $0.475
- Context131K
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 67/100 against Qwen3 30B A3B (57) and DeepSeek R1 0528 (53). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityDeepSeek R1 0528Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek R1 0528 141.2 · Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 · Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7
- Lowest priceGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash $0.18 · Qwen3 30B A3B $0.20 · DeepSeek R1 0528 $0.932 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek R1 0528 163,840 · Qwen3 30B A3B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · DeepSeek R1 0528: Text · Qwen3 30B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek R1 0528 and Qwen3 30B A3BPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | DeepSeek R1 0528 | Qwen3 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 58 | 66 | 59 |
| Price | 25% | 82 | 49 | 80 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 61 | 28 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 67/100 | 53/100 | 57/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | DeepSeek R1 0528DeepSeek | Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 | 141.2 (best) | 136.2 |
| ECI rank | #130 of 165 | #108 of 165 (best) | #126 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 64.1% | 76.3% (best) | 61.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 31.1% | 66.4% (best) | 62.8% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.512 | $0.108 |
| Output | $0.42 (best) | $2.19 | $0.475 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18 (best) | $0.932 | $0.20 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 16 providers | Median of 14 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 163,840 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenMIT | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 16 (best) | 14 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | May 28, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 2.0 Flash$1.84
- DeepSeek R1 0528$9.50
- Qwen3 30B A3B$2.03
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528 or Qwen3 30B A3B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 67/100 against Qwen3 30B A3B (57) and DeepSeek R1 0528 (53). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek R1 0528 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528 or Qwen3 30B A3B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.42 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Qwen3 30B A3B costs $0.108 input / $0.475 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers); DeepSeek R1 0528 costs $0.512 input / $2.19 output per million tokens (median across 16 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.18 per million tokens for Gemini 2.0 Flash versus $0.20 for Qwen3 30B A3B (1.1× as much) and $0.932 for DeepSeek R1 0528 (5.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
DeepSeek R1 0528 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): DeepSeek R1 0528 141.2 (#108 of 165), Qwen3 30B A3B 136.2 (#126 of 165) and Gemini 2.0 Flash 134.7 (#130 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (139.0–142.9 vs 130.8–138.5), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek R1 0528 76.3%, Gemini 2.0 Flash 64.1%, Qwen3 30B A3B 61.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek R1 0528 66.4%, Qwen3 30B A3B 62.8%, Gemini 2.0 Flash 31.1%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.0 Flash, DeepSeek R1 0528 and Qwen3 30B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek R1 0528 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 163,840 for DeepSeek R1 0528 and 131,072 for Qwen3 30B A3B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, DeepSeek R1 0528 up to 32,768, Qwen3 30B A3B up to 16,384 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; DeepSeek R1 0528 accepts text; Qwen3 30B A3B accepts text. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek R1 0528 and Qwen3 30B A3B publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek R1 0528 is the newest, released May 28, 2025. Qwen3 30B A3B came out Apr 28, 2025; Gemini 2.0 Flash came out Dec 11, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 2.0 Flash Jun 2024.
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.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BDeepSeek
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B InstructMeta · ECI 132.3
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 134.9
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.6
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Kimi K2 InstructMoonshot AI · ECI 139.9
- DeepSeek R1 0528 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
