Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 30 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
15
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
30
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 4.6 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

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 (Max). That is roughly 17.2x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 (Max) 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin→ 68.8DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin→ 9.3DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin← 5.9DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin→ 1.8DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 37.7%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 11.3
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 37.7%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.1%B 67.9%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 8.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 67.9%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 79.2%B 87.5%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 8.3
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.2%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 87.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 80.6%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 80.6%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 90.1%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 0.2
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 90.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%67.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%96.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —83.4%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —48.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1307Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —51.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —36.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —40.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —932Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —40.4%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —84.4%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —38.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —25.8%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —46.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —64%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%80.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%49.93%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%50.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
CodeforcesSource —3206.0Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —55.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.2%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —67.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —59.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-LCRSource 57.7%66.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
CritPtSource 0.9%12.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MRCR 1MSource —83.5%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —62.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
GPQASource 89.9%90.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%87.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
HLESource 49%37.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%44.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%88.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%35.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-10.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%43.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%94.0%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SimpleQASource —57.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —84.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.1%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —50.0%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —95.2%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —89.8%Not comparable
ApexSource —38.3%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —90.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
CharXivSource 77.4%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13141264Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%76.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 60.1. 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 (Max)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.9 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 (Max)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.2 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 (Max)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 65.2. Inside this category, τ²-bench results 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 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.