Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 36 to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 3
- DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 56.58 versus 53.95. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.3 against 68.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 78.6%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High). That is roughly 17.9x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 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 Flash (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
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 Haiku 4.5 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 87.0 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | Margin← 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5 |
| Agentic | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.3%B 78.6%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 5.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 78.6%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1M | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 40.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 67.4% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 43.5% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 28.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1147 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.3% | 78.6% | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
| CodeforcesSource | — | 2816.0 | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 70.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 42.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 52.0% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 28.9% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 73.2% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 86.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -22.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 35.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.7% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 5.903% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 91.9% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 85.1% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 19.1% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 72.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1152 | 1238 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 53.95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 78.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 68.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 4.9. Claude Haiku 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.