Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 17 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 21 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 17
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 16
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 21
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 17 shared benchmark results across 6 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
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 55.47. 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 knowledge, where it averages 66 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 49% to 34.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6.
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 Sonnet 4.6 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | Margin→ 67.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | Margin← 9.0 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | Margin→ 5.4 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | Margin→ 0.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 49%B 34.5%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 14.5HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 79.2%B 87.1%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 7.9MMLU-Pro: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.2%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.1%B 63.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 4.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 89.9%B 89.1%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 0.8GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 79.6%B 79.4%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 0.2SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 63.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 79.5% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1299 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 34.4% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | 79.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 46.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CodeforcesSource | — | 2919.0 | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 54.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | 89.1% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | 87.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| HLESource | 49% | 34.5% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 43.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 90.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 33.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | -9.7% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 41.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 88.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| SimpleQASource | — | 46.2% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 32.400% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 8.300% | — | 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 |
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 71.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 49% and 34.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 26.4. Claude Sonnet 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 65.2. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.