DeepSeek R1 vs Gemini 3 Flash

Detailed comparison between DeepSeek R1 and Gemini 3 Flash for RAG applications. See which LLM best meets your accuracy, performance, and cost needs.

Model Comparison

Gemini 3 Flash takes the lead.

Both DeepSeek R1 and Gemini 3 Flash are powerful language models designed for RAG applications. However, their performance characteristics differ in important ways.

Why Gemini 3 Flash:

  • Gemini 3 Flash has 319 higher ELO rating
  • Gemini 3 Flash delivers better overall quality (4.95 vs 4.84)
  • Gemini 3 Flash is 10.5s faster on average
  • Gemini 3 Flash has a 42.1% higher win rate

Overview

Key metrics

ELO Rating

Overall ranking quality

DeepSeek R1

1288

Gemini 3 Flash

1607

Win Rate

Head-to-head performance

DeepSeek R1

18.9%

Gemini 3 Flash

61.0%

Quality Score

Overall quality metric

DeepSeek R1

4.84

Gemini 3 Flash

4.95

Average Latency

Response time

DeepSeek R1

18271ms

Gemini 3 Flash

7802ms

Visual Performance Analysis

Performance

ELO Rating Comparison

Win/Loss/Tie Breakdown

Quality Across Datasets (Overall Score)

Latency Distribution (ms)

Breakdown

How the models stack up

MetricDeepSeek R1Gemini 3 FlashDescription
Overall Performance
ELO Rating
1288
1607
Overall ranking quality based on pairwise comparisons
Win Rate
18.9%
61.0%
Percentage of comparisons won against other models
Quality Score
4.84
4.95
Average quality across all RAG metrics
Pricing & Context
Input Price per 1M
$0.30
$0.50
Cost per million input tokens
Output Price per 1M
$1.20
$3.00
Cost per million output tokens
Context Window
164K
1049K
Maximum context window size
Release Date
2025-01-20
2025-12-17
Model release date
Performance Metrics
Avg Latency
18.3s
7.8s
Average response time across all datasets

Dataset Performance

By benchmark

Comprehensive comparison of RAG quality metrics (correctness, faithfulness, grounding, relevance, completeness) and latency for each benchmark dataset.

MSMARCO

MetricDeepSeek R1Gemini 3 FlashDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.67
4.83
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.70
4.87
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.67
4.87
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.90
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.60
4.90
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.71
4.89
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
16654ms
6852ms
Average response time
Min9675ms3389msFastest response time
Max31255ms9837msSlowest response time

PG

MetricDeepSeek R1Gemini 3 FlashDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
4.90
5.00
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
4.90
5.00
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.87
5.00
Citations and context usage
Relevance
4.93
5.00
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.60
5.00
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.84
5.00
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
23334ms
9444ms
Average response time
Min12280ms5346msFastest response time
Max85633ms12549msSlowest response time

SciFact

MetricDeepSeek R1Gemini 3 FlashDescription
Quality Metrics
Correctness
5.00
5.00
Factual accuracy of responses
Faithfulness
5.00
5.00
Adherence to source material
Grounding
4.97
5.00
Citations and context usage
Relevance
5.00
4.97
Query alignment and focus
Completeness
4.87
4.83
Coverage of all aspects
Overall
4.97
4.96
Average across all metrics
Latency Metrics
Mean
14826ms
7110ms
Average response time
Min7765ms3784msFastest response time
Max33129ms18224msSlowest response time

Explore More

Compare more LLMs

See how all LLMs stack up for RAG applications. Compare GPT-5, Claude, Gemini, and more. View comprehensive benchmarks and find the perfect LLM for your needs.