Skip to main content
BenchLM

Claude Sonnet 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Updated September 27, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 13 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo

Anthropic

67.01/100

Supported · Public rank #20

90% interval 62.8–71.2

Model B
DeepSeek logo

DeepSeek

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
13
Claude Sonnet 5 only
13
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 only
29
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 5How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

60.8Claude Sonnet 5—DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
64.2
Supported · #12/105
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
60.8
Supported · #15/135
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 11 vs 15 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
78.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
57.0
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
77.4
#15/50
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
64.5
Supported · #23/158
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 8 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not ranked
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
79.9
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5
$0.007
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00028
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5
$0.13
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00784
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5
$0.18
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00616
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Sonnet 5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

$0.0028 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

2026-07-31

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.00784. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.00616.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.00028 on DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.00784; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.00616. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence55 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Sonnet 514.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073182.7%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Sonnet 584.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073173.2%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073145.1%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 581.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 574.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073167.0%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • ApprenticeBench

    Claude Sonnet 516%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073156.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073169%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073147.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073176.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073170.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073125.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073125.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 585.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073179%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 563.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073152.6%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 578.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073173.3%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 528.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073182.7%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 542.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Sonnet 561.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench CII v1

    Claude Sonnet 589.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 582.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073187.3%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 579.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • cursorBench40

    Claude Sonnet 534.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073191.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 07313052.0
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073156.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073154.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073154.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-FullStack

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073168.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073159.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073153.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073178.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073160.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073189.00%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073161.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • CharXiv

    Claude Sonnet 588.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 577%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073134.8%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 543.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 531.0%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    Claude Sonnet 580.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 588.9%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073189.9%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 587.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073186.2%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073186.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073134.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073178.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073194.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073133.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    Claude Sonnet 5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073185.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

55 public results · 13 shared

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 27, 2026