Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.61/100
Margin
1.9pts
winning →
55.47/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 4 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 34 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
8
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
34
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 4 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 4 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) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.47 versus 53.61. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 11.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50% to 63.3%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 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 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.5ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
MathClaude Sonnet 4.511.2Margin 82.8DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.583.4Margin 26.4DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.555.4Margin 15.2DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.577.2Margin 7.4DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.513.6MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.5B · DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 50%B 63.3%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 13.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 89.1%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 5.7
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 79.4%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 2.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%. 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 Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5$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 Sonnet 4.5Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5200KDeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1MDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50%63.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 61.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 17.0%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 48.51%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 27.7%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
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%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 Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
ARC-AGI-2Source 13.6%Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource 83.3%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 56.5%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 10.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
GPQASource 83.4%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 Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
AIME 2025Source 87%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 13.495%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%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 Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12191264DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 71.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50% and 63.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 57. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 69.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 11.2. Claude Sonnet 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 55.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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.