Skip to content
VECTOR WIREAI INTELLIGENCE
⌘K
UTC
Models823Deals30d280Policy30d83, 18 pendingSources1,162

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Anthropic · released

Wins 0 of 8 areas

—

DeepSeek · released

Wins 7 of 8 areas

Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is the stronger all-rounder.

Scores updated · 33 tests both models report · How we compare

Where each one wins

Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.

Math, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.

What it costs

Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.

Claude Sonnet 4.6$3.00 to read · $15.00 to write$18Price from Artificial Analysis
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash$0.30 to read · $1.20 to write$1.50Price from Artificial Analysis

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs 92% less for the same work.

The biggest differences

The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.

Where DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash pulls ahead

  • Fixes real GitHub issues, working as an agentLiveBench · Agentic Coding+34.7points aheadDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash77.3Claude Sonnet 4.642.6
  • Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+23.8points aheadDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash26.8Claude Sonnet 4.63
  • Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+19.8points aheadDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash78.1Claude Sonnet 4.658.3

Where Claude Sonnet 4.6 pulls ahead

  • Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+48.1points aheadClaude Sonnet 4.651.6DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash3.5
  • Reasoning about charts from research papersCharXiv (RQ)+2.6points aheadClaude Sonnet 4.671.6DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash69

Every test, side by side

All 33 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.

CodingDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Full coding ranking

AgentsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
  • Terminal-Bench 4.0DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash by 23.8326.8+23.8
  • GDPValDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash by 18.436.655+18.4
  • AA IT-Bench SREDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash by 7.139.846.9+7.1

Full agents ranking

ReasoningDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Full reasoning ranking

FactsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Full facts ranking

Images and chartsEven

Full images and charts ranking

MathDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Full math ranking

Long documentsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
  • AA-LCRDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash by 48084+4

Full long documents ranking

Following instructionsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Full following instructions ranking

Other results11 tests, not counted

Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.

Questions people ask

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash wins seven of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math, long documents and following instructions. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins none. They are level on images and charts.

Which is better for coding?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash. It wins 4 of the 5 coding tests both models report; Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins none, and 1 is a tie.

Which is cheaper?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash about 92% cheaper for the same work.

How do you compare the two?

We use the 33 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 22 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 11 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.

Compare Claude Sonnet 4.6 with

Anthropic

Across the field

Compare DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash with

DeepSeek

Across the field

All comparisons