uttapen

Gemini 2.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V3

Both sit behind the same key and the same code on uttapen — the only thing that changes is the model string, so you can run each of them against your own workload without touching anything else. On cost, DeepSeek V3 comes out about 2.3× cheaper.

FeatureGemini 2.5 FlashDeepSeek V3
ProviderGoogleDeepSeek
Model idgoogle/gemini-2.5-flashdeepseek/deepseek-chat
Context1,048,576 tokens163,840 tokens
Max output65,535 tokens16,384 tokens
Input / 1M tokens87,038 toman92,840 toman
Output / 1M tokens725,313 toman258,211 toman
≈ one 1,000-word request1,056 toman456 toman
Input caching8,704 toman / 1MNo
Image inputYesNo
File inputYesNo
Tool callingYesYes
JSON outputYesYes
Reasoning modeYesNo

Which one for what?

Gemini 2.5 Flash

  • Multi-step problems, maths, and tracking down a bug
  • Whole documents or a codebase in a single request
  • Reading screenshots, invoices, and scanned forms
  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
1,056 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

DeepSeek V3

  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
456 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Run both with the same code

Swap the model value between the two ids and send the same request twice; what each answer cost comes back in the X-Uttapen-Cost-Toman header.

curl https://api.uttapen.ir/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk-up-…" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "google/gemini-2.5-flash",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Introduce yourself in one sentence."}],
    "stream": true
  }'

model = "deepseek/deepseek-chat"

More comparisons: all pairs · model rankings · full catalogue

base_url = https://api.uttapen.ir/v1