Head-to-head · multimodal vs multimodal

DeepSeek-R1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro: which model should you choose?

We compared DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1 has the stronger average benchmark score; DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

DeepSeek

DeepSeek-R1

DeepSeek-R1 is a multimodal model from DeepSeek. It offers a 128,000-token context window, costs $5.83 per million input tokens and $25.23 per million output tokens, and averages 82.8 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$5.83 / 1M
Output
$25.23 / 1M
Context
128,000
Avg score
82.8
Open weights
Yes
Full DeepSeek-R1 page
Google DeepMind

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Gemini 2.5 Pro is a multimodal model from Google DeepMind. It offers a 200,000-token context window, costs $15.20 per million input tokens and $57.83 per million output tokens, and averages 81.6 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$15.20 / 1M
Output
$57.83 / 1M
Context
200,000
Avg score
81.6
Open weights
No
Full Gemini 2.5 Pro page

Specification comparison

SpecDeepSeek-R1Gemini 2.5 ProEdge
Input price / 1M$5.83$15.20A
Output price / 1M$25.23$57.83A
Context window128,000200,000B
Max output4,09616,384B
Average score82.881.6A
Arena Elo1454.11455.0B
Open weightsYesNoA

Benchmark comparison

DeepSeek-R1 wins 9, Gemini 2.5 Pro wins 3, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkDeepSeek-R1Gemini 2.5 ProGapWinner
MMLU-Pro83.883.60.2DeepSeek-R1
GPQA Diamond77.876.51.3DeepSeek-R1
SWE-bench Verified72.270.22.0DeepSeek-R1
HumanEval86.487.71.3Gemini 2.5 Pro
MATH-50089.186.82.3DeepSeek-R1
AIME 202581.176.15.0DeepSeek-R1
LiveCodeBench77.476.21.2DeepSeek-R1
IFEval91.087.63.4DeepSeek-R1
TruthfulQA82.982.80.1DeepSeek-R1
HellaSwag89.889.70.1DeepSeek-R1
MMMU79.580.51.0Gemini 2.5 Pro
Arena Elo1454.11455.00.9Gemini 2.5 Pro

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, DeepSeek-R1 costs about $10.68 per million tokens and Gemini 2.5 Pro costs about $25.86. DeepSeek-R1 is roughly 59% cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Pro. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger context window at 200,000 tokens, compared with 128,000 for DeepSeek-R1. That matters for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, DeepSeek-R1 wins 9, Gemini 2.5 Pro wins 3, and 0 are tied. On the index average, DeepSeek-R1 leads Gemini 2.5 Pro by 1.2 points (82.8 versus 81.6).

The price picture favours DeepSeek-R1. The context picture favours Gemini 2.5 Pro. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with DeepSeek-R1 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Choose DeepSeek-R1 if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need open weights for self-hosting or fine-tuning.

Choose Gemini 2.5 Pro if

  • You need the larger 200,000-token context window.
  • You need the larger 16,384-token output limit.

FAQ

Is DeepSeek-R1 better than Gemini 2.5 Pro?

On the index average, DeepSeek-R1 leads Gemini 2.5 Pro by 1.2 points (82.8 versus 81.6). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. DeepSeek-R1 wins 9 benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Pro wins 3.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or Gemini 2.5 Pro?

DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $10.68 per million tokens, versus $25.86 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Which has the larger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger context window at 200,000 tokens. DeepSeek-R1 has 128,000 tokens.

Are these models open weights?

DeepSeek-R1 is open weights; Gemini 2.5 Pro is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with DeepSeek-R1 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Related comparisons