Gemini 2.0 Flash vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
Gemini 2.0 Flash comes out ahead, 56 to 45 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
56/100- ECI134.7
- Price$0.10 / $0.42
- Context1.05M
DeepSeekDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
45/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.0 Flash is our pick
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (45). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BShared benchmarks: DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 59.9% · Gemini 2.0 Flash 47.6%
- Lowest priceGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash $0.18 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B unpriced
- Longest contextGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash 1,048,576 · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.0 FlashGemini 2.0 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B: Text
- Self-hostingDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 2.0 Flash | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 67% | 48 | 60 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 80 | 10 |
| Context window | 13% | 61 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 45/100 |
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 | Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle | DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BDeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 134.7 | — |
| ECI rank | #130 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 64.1% | 64.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 31.1% | 55.6% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | — |
| Output | $0.42 | — |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.18 | — |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | — |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | — |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Jan 20, 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-Distill-Qwen-32B—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 2.0 Flash or DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (45). It leads on inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.0 Flash or DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.42 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). . 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 . DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025): DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 59.9% and Gemini 2.0 Flash 47.6%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 2.0 Flash 64.1%, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 64.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 55.6%, Gemini 2.0 Flash 31.1%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 2.0 Flash and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
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-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 2.0 Flash up to 8,192, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B accepts text. Gemini 2.0 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.0 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B is the newest, released Jan 20, 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
- Add Qwen3 30B A3BThree-way comparison
- Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Qwen3 30B A3BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 136.2
- 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-Distill-Qwen-32B vs QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 137.5
- DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 134.9
- DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B InstructMeta · ECI 132.3
