Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude 4 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Updated October 25, 2026. Rank says DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead. 0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude 4 Sonnet

Anthropic

38.11/100

Estimated · Public rank #147

Conditional range 28.4–47.8

Model B
DeepSeek logo
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

DeepSeek

65.78/100

Supported · Public rank #35

90% interval 60.8–70.8

Shared results
0
Claude 4 Sonnet only
4
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 only
33
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Claude 4 Sonnet · Supported: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works

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

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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 V4.1 Flash 1017

    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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

    Claude 4 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Claude 4 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

—Claude 4 Sonnet61.1DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude 4 Sonnet
37.0
Estimated · #128/187
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
64.4
Supported · #37/187
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
61.7
Supported · #24/132
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
61.1
Supported · #18/153
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 8 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
55.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
82.5
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
57.4
Unranked · 1 rankable row
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
78.8
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
53.5
#89/153
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude 4 Sonnet
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
70.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 4 Sonnet
$0.0105
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
$0.0009
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude 4 Sonnet
$0.195
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
$0.0186
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 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 4 Sonnet
$0.81
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
$0.0192
Fits in one request

Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude 4 Sonnet

200K

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

1M

DeepSeek models and pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude 4 Sonnet

Not published

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

$0.006 per 1M cached input tokens

DeepSeek: Models & Pricing

Reasoning profile

Claude 4 Sonnet

Non-Reasoning

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude 4 Sonnet

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Open Weight

License

Claude 4 Sonnet

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

Open Weight

Release date

Claude 4 Sonnet

2025-05-22

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

2026-10-17

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.195 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.81 vs $0.0192.
Context tradeoff
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

Claude 4 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

Claude 4 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude 4 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0105 on Claude 4 Sonnet and $0.0009 on DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017; repository review costs $0.195 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.81 and $0.0192. Claude 4 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude 4 Sonnet or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude 4 Sonnet
API / mo$13,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
API / mo$1,125
Self-host / mo$27,962
Break-even1.6B/day
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence37 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    Claude 4 Sonnet39.66%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude 4 Sonnet18.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBench3

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101730%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101742.30%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101788.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101715.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101763.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101760.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101735.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101774.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CWE-bench v1

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101755.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10171%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude 4 Sonnet72.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10173471.0
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBench3

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101730%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101777.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ProgramBench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101729.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101768.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101760.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101739.1 fixes
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • STEMBench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10172.49
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JevBench 1.4

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10174.77
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JevBench 1.5

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 10176.65
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101787.11%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ParseBench

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101764.56%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chartography (tools)

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101783.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101792.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101751.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101790.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101742.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    Claude 4 Sonnet33.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017—

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101765.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101767.368%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude 4 Sonnet—
    DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 101726.829%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

37 public results · 0 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude 4 Sonnet vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated October 25, 2026