// head_to_head
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
deepseek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Blended / 1M
- $0.180
- Context
- 1.0M
- Released
- Sep 10, 2026
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
Gemma 4 31B
- Blended / 1M
- $0.250
- Context
- 262K
- Released
- Apr 2, 2026
- Overall score
- 38.7
Specs and pricing
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 38.7 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0017 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $0.180win | $0.250 |
| Input price / 1M | $0.051win | $0.200 |
| Output price / 1M | $0.567 | $0.400win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | $0.018 | — |
| Context window | 1.0Mwin | 262K |
| Max output tokens | 944Kwin | 16K |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash on top, Gemma 4 31B below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Gemma 4 31B |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $55.22/mo | $80.00/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $61.62/mo | $184.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $67.68/mo | $192.00/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $91.88/mo | $230.00/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $167.70/mo | $540.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Wider context window — 1.0M against 262K.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B FAQ
Which is better, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Gemma 4 31B?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash cheaper than Gemma 4 31B?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash lists at $0.180 per million tokens and Gemma 4 31B at $0.250 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is 39% cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash charges $0.051 in and $0.567 out, Gemma 4 31B charges $0.200 and $0.400 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Gemma 4 31B have a bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the larger context window: 1.0M for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash against 262K for Gemma 4 31B. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Gemma 4 31B support prompt caching?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash publishes a cached-input rate of $0.018 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.051. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Gemma 4 31B, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.