Model comparison
DeepSeek V3 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3 #147 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to DeepSeek V3; 19 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- DeepSeek V3 only
- 3
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3 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 19 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 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) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.47 to 44.97. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 1.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 42% to 79.4%. DeepSeek V3 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
DeepSeek V3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.27 input / $1.10 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3 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 128K for DeepSeek V3.
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 | DeepSeek V3 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V31.7 | Margin→ 92.3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V338.9 | Margin→ 30.9 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V372.7 | Margin← 15.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 |
| Inst. Following | DeepSeek V386.1 | 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 ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 42%B 79.4%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 37.4SWE-bench Verified: DeepSeek V3 scored 42%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59.1%B 89.1%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 30GPQA: DeepSeek V3 scored 59.1%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 75.9%B 87.1%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 11.2MMLU-Pro: DeepSeek V3 scored 75.9%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3$0.27 input / $1.1 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 | DeepSeek V3Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3128K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.6% | 34.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 22.8% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 39.9% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 217 | 1299 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBenchSource | 37.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 42% | 79.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 23.0% | 58.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 35.4% | 46.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| 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 |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeDeepSeek V3 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.1% | 89.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 75.9% | 87.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.2% | 43.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 55.7% | 90.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.6% | 33.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -41.3% | -9.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.4% | 41.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 89.4% | 88.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SimpleQASource | — | 46.2% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins5 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1150 | 1264 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 44.97. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 42% and 79.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, DeepSeek V3 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V3 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 38.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 1.7. DeepSeek V3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.