Coding
Directional only- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 49.0
- DeepSeek V3
- 38.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V3
Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the higher public score estimate, 46.9 versus 44.15, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
3 Shared
3 DeepSeek V3 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 1
- DeepSeek V3 only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 59.4
- DeepSeek V3
- 72.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Math
Directional only- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 1.6
- DeepSeek V3
- 1.7
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not measured
- DeepSeek V3
- 86.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | DeepSeek V3 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 49.0 | 38.9 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 59.4 | 72.7 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 1.6 | 1.7 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 86.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
GPQA
Knowledge
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 59.4%DeepSeek V3: 59.1%Normalized gap 0.3Claude 3.5 Sonnet source DeepSeek V3 source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.00082
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0168
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0304
- Does not fit in one request
Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
200K
DeepSeek V3
128K
API model ID
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not published
DeepSeek V3
$0.07 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
DeepSeek V3
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Proprietary
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
License
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Proprietary
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
Release date
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
2024-06-01
DeepSeek V3
2024-12-26
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the higher public score estimate, 46.9 versus 44.15, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0168. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.0304.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the larger documented window (200K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
API / mo$13,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
DeepSeek V3
API / mo$1,028
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even1.2B/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows
Coding
Knowledge
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude 3.5 Sonnet2.069%DeepSeek V31.724%Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet0.000%SourceDeepSeek V3—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—DeepSeek V386.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the higher public score estimate, 46.9 versus 44.15, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude 3.5 Sonnet and $0.00082 on DeepSeek V3; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0168; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.0304. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated July 30, 2026
Watch Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.