Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
9.7pts
← winning
55.4/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V3.2 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 1 to DeepSeek V3.2.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
15
DeepSeek V3.2 only
1
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 7 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 Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 55.4. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 26.4 against 17.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 32.400% to 22.100%.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V3.2
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔDeepSeek V3.2
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin← 9.3DeepSeek V3.217.1
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin← 8.2DeepSeek V3.260.9
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · DeepSeek V3.2

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 32.400%B 22.100%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 10.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 8.300%B 2.100%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 6.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 8.300%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-Rebench

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 60.7%B 60.9%
    Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 0.2
    SWE-Rebench: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 60.7%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 60.9%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputDeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 outputDeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sDeepSeek V3.235 tok/sClaude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sDeepSeek V3.23.75 sClaude Sonnet 4.6 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KDeepSeek V3.2128KClaude Sonnet 4.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%40.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%78.9%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%29.57%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —18.5%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%60.9%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%71.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%38.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
AA-LCRSource 57.7%39.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 0.9%0.9%Tie
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
GPQASource 89.9%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 49%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%24.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%75.1%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%10.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-46.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%24.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%93.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MathClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%22.100%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%2.100%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13171206Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V3.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%49.0%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 55.4. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 32.400% and 22.100%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 60.9. Inside this category, React Native Evals is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 26.4 versus 17.1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 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.