Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V3.2
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and DeepSeek V3.2 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 17 to DeepSeek V3.2.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 2
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 17
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V3.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.4 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V3.2's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 17.1 against 1.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 2.069% to 22.100%.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 35.7x on output cost alone. Claude 3.5 Sonnet gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Δ | DeepSeek V3.2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | Margin→ 15.5 | DeepSeek V3.217.1 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | Margin→ 11.9 | DeepSeek V3.260.9 |
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 2.069%B 22.100%Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 20FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 2.069%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 0.000%B 2.100%Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 0.000%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | DeepSeek V3.2 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | DeepSeek V3.2128K | Claude 3.5 Sonnet lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
CodingDeepSeek V3.2 wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | DeepSeek V3.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 24.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 75.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 10.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -46.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 24.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V3.2 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | DeepSeek V3.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1206 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | DeepSeek V3.2 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 49.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3.2?
DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.4 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 2.069% and 22.100%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3.2?
DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.9 versus 49. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V3.2?
DeepSeek V3.2 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 17.1 versus 1.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.