Skip to main content
BenchLM

DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Updated September 29, 2026. Rank says DeepSeek V3 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

DeepSeek V3 has the higher public score estimate, 31.86 versus 22.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
DeepSeek logo

DeepSeek

31.86/100

Supported · Public rank #156

90% interval 15.8–47.9

Model B
Meta logo

Meta

22.94/100

Supported · Public rank #192

90% interval 17.5–28.4

Shared results
1
DeepSeek V3 only
5
Llama 4 Maverick only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: DeepSeek V3 and Llama 4 MaverickHow 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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Llama 4 Maverick

    Llama 4 Maverick has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V3 and Llama 4 Maverick are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V3 and Llama 4 Maverick are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

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

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

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.

18.6DeepSeek V318.1Llama 4 Maverick

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7

DeepSeek V3 scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.

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.

4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math

    Normalized gap 1.0
    DeepSeek V3:1.724%
    Llama 4 Maverick:0.690%
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

Directional only
DeepSeek V3
12.1
Estimated · #113/117
Llama 4 Maverick
12.8
Estimated · #112/117
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
DeepSeek V3
18.6
Estimated · #131/143
Llama 4 Maverick
18.1
Estimated · #135/143
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
DeepSeek V3
30.2
Estimated · #140/169
Llama 4 Maverick
31.0
Estimated · #137/169
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
DeepSeek V3
38.2
#103/124
Llama 4 Maverick
48.9
#82/124
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3
42.3
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Llama 4 Maverick
56.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3
Not ranked
Llama 4 Maverick
52.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3
Not ranked
Llama 4 Maverick
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
DeepSeek V3
26.0
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Llama 4 Maverick
25.1
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 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.

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

DeepSeek V3
$0.00082
Fits in one request
Llama 4 Maverick
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

DeepSeek V3
$0.0168
Fits in one request
Llama 4 Maverick
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

DeepSeek V3
$0.0304
Does not fit in one request
Llama 4 Maverick
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate.

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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

DeepSeek V3

128K

Llama 4 Maverick

1M

API model ID

DeepSeek V3

Not sourced

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

DeepSeek V3

$0.07 per 1M cached input tokens

Llama 4 Maverick

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

DeepSeek V3

Not sourced

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Documented outputs

DeepSeek V3

Not sourced

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Provider availability

DeepSeek V3

Not sourced

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

DeepSeek V3

Non-Reasoning

Llama 4 Maverick

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

DeepSeek V3

Open Weight

Llama 4 Maverick

Open Weight

License

DeepSeek V3

Open Weight

Llama 4 Maverick

Open Weight

Release date

DeepSeek V3

2024-12-26

Llama 4 Maverick

2026-02-28

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
DeepSeek V3 has the higher public score estimate, 31.86 versus 22.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Llama 4 Maverick has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, DeepSeek V3 or Llama 4 Maverick?

DeepSeek V3 has the higher public score estimate, 31.86 versus 22.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3 or Llama 4 Maverick?

DeepSeek V3 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 18.6 to 18.1. DeepSeek V3 and Llama 4 Maverick are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, DeepSeek V3 or Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 4 Maverick scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 12.8 to 12.1. DeepSeek V3 and Llama 4 Maverick are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, DeepSeek V3 or Llama 4 Maverick?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, DeepSeek V3 or Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 4 Maverick has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

DeepSeek V3
API / mo$1,028
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even1.2B/day
Llama 4 Maverick
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,610
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence6 rows

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench

    DeepSeek V337.6%
    Source
    Llama 4 Maverick—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    DeepSeek V342%
    Source
    Llama 4 Maverick—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    DeepSeek V359.1%
    Source
    Llama 4 Maverick—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    DeepSeek V375.9%
    Source
    Llama 4 Maverick—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    DeepSeek V386.1%
    Source
    Llama 4 Maverick—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    DeepSeek V31.724%
    Llama 4 Maverick0.690%

    DeepSeek V3 leads this result

6 public results · 1 shared

Watch DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 4 Maverick

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 29, 2026