← All Comparisons

DeepSeek V3 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

A detailed comparison of DeepSeek V3 (DeepSeek) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) across pricing, performance, and features.

Pricing Comparison

MetricDeepSeek V3Claude Sonnet 4.6Difference
Input / 1M tokens$0.14$3.00+2043%
Output / 1M tokens$0.28$15.00+5257%
Context window164K200K
Max output16.384K16K

Benchmark Comparison

BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Claude Sonnet 4.6
MMLU-Pro78%86%
HumanEval89%94%
GPQA70%

Capabilities

CapabilityDeepSeek V3Claude Sonnet 4.6
code
reasoning
text
tool-use
vision

DeepSeek V3 Strengths

  • Cheapest capable model available
  • Strong coding performance
  • Open-source

DeepSeek V3 Weaknesses

  • No vision support
  • Smaller context than competitors
  • China-based — availability concerns

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Strengths

  • Opus 4.5 quality at 1/5th the cost
  • Best value for production workloads
  • 1M context in beta

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Weaknesses

  • Long context pricing doubles above 200K
  • Slightly below Opus 4.6 on hardest tasks

Quick Verdict

Best value: DeepSeek V3 is the more affordable option at $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens.

Higher benchmarks: DeepSeek V3 scores higher on average across available benchmarks (83.5% avg).

Larger context: Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 200K tokens.

Choose DeepSeek V3 if cost matters most. Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you need the best possible quality for complex tasks.

More Comparisons