Model comparison
DeepSeek Coder 33B vs Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025)
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has enough public results to be ranked (#228); DeepSeek Coder 33B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
GoogleSummary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek Coder 33B scores higher in 1 category and Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek Coder 33B leads 38.0 to 28.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 51.1% for DeepSeek Coder 33B and 59.9% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025).
- DeepSeek Coder 33B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | |
| Noometry Index | 38.9 | 35.1 |
| Released | 2023-11-02 | 2024-12-06 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 54 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek Coder 33B leads
DeepSeek Coder 33B: 38.0 (#184), Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42% | 45.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 51.1% | 59.9% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 13.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 38.2% |
| WeirdML | — | 25.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 63.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1350 |
| CadEval | — | 30% |
| HumanEval+ | 75% | — |
| MBPP+ | 70.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 11.4% |
Reasoning Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 96.32 | 135.36 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 1.3% |
| SimpleBench | — | 31.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 37.8% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 1.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 78.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1346 |
| DTBench | — | 63.2% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 69.4% |
| LiveBench | — | 66.9% |
| WinoGrande | 62% | — |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 57.8% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 45.9% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 75.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1352 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 82.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
| GSM8K | 35.4% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 39.4% | 79.7% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 64.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 6.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 73.7% |
| Confabulations | — | 12.4% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 55.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1339 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1158 |
| GeoBench | — | 77% |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1342 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1373 |
| LMArena French | — | 1391 |
| LMArena German | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1294 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1351 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1363 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 85.8% |
| IFEval | — | 84.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1336 |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 61.1% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1344 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1354 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1340 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 73.8% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1128 |
| WildBench | — | 80% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1350 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek Coder 33B better than Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025)?
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has enough public results to be ranked (#228); DeepSeek Coder 33B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is DeepSeek Coder 33B or Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better for coding?
DeepSeek Coder 33B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 28.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek Coder 33B and Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek Coder 33B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54.