Model comparison

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus vs Gemma 2B

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus DeepSeek

42.6

Rank #96 Confirmed

Gemma 2B Google

29.1

Rank #305 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher in 7 categories and Gemma 2B in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads 61.3 to 24.1.

Side by side

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Gemma 2B specifications
DeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
ProviderDeepSeekGoogle
Noometry Index42.629.1
Released2025-09-222024-02-21
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window164K—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked1623

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 41.5 (#114), Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Coding14261010
SciCode40.6%—
ALE-Bench745.17—
HumanEval+—20.7%
MBPP+—34.1%

Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 25.7 (#126), Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Hard Prompts1427989
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.4%—
CritPt1.7%—
DTBench81.3%—
LMCA28.6%—
BIG-Bench Hard—35.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—93.57
HellaSwag—71.4%
PIQA—77.3%
WinoGrande—65.4%

Math DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 35.7 (#138), Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Math14021009
GSM8K—17.7%

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —, Gemma 2B: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
ARC (AI2) Challenge—42.1%
BoolQ—69.4%
MMLU—42.3%
TriviaQA—53.2%

Multilingual DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.3 (#87), Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Non-English1407958
LMArena Russian1434937
LMArena Chinese—986

Instruction Following DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.4 (#96), Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Instruction Following1406971

Long Context DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.5 (#88), Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Longer Query1426981

Writing & Preference DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.3 (#87), Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek-V3.1-TerminusGemma 2B
LMArena Text14201002
LMArena Creative Writing1404986
LMArena Multi-Turn1411945

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better than Gemma 2B?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.6 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Gemma 2B better for coding?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.5 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Gemma 2B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2B has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper