Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.74/100
Margin
7.7pts
winning →
55.47/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 36 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
2
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
36
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.47 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 1.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49% to 79.4%. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 17.2x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

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 scores and score margins for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
CategoryClaude 3.5 SonnetΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
MathClaude 3.5 Sonnet1.6Margin 92.4DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0
CodingClaude 3.5 Sonnet49.0Margin 20.8DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet59.4Margin 2.4DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0
AgenticClaude 3.5 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 3.5 SonnetB · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 79.4%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 30.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 59.4%B 89.1%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 29.7
    GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet200KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 80.4%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource 44.7%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.2%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 49%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 39.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1299Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 34.4%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 49%79.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
CodeforcesSource 2919.0Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 54.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 74.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 58.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 10.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
GPQASource 59.4%89.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
MMLU-ProSource 87.1%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 46.2%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 77.7%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.1%Not comparable
HLESource 34.5%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 43.1%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 90.5%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 33.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 2.069%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 94.0%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 88.0%Not comparable
ApexSource 27.4%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 85.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1264Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49% and 79.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 57. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 1.6. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.