Claude Sonnet 4 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) leads the LLM Stats Score 32.7 to 24.3. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is 19.0x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) leads the overall LLM Stats Score 32.7 to 24.3, ranking #102 overall.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is roughly 19.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude Sonnet 4 also accepts a larger context window (200,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Sonnet 4
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
Choose DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
- overall performance matters — it scores 32.7 and ranks #102 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 19.0x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2025
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
8 reported for Claude Sonnet 4 · 14 for DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
Claude Sonnet 4 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is better at 3 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA, SWE-Bench Verified).
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Sonnet 4 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 10.7x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) ($0.28/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Sonnet 4 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 35.7x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) ($0.42/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 4 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude Sonnet 4 accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)'s 131,072 tokens. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) can generate longer responses up to 65,536 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 4 is limited to 64,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Sonnet 4 supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) does not.
Claude Sonnet 4 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Claude Sonnet 4
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Sonnet 4 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Sonnet 4 was released on 2025-05-22, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) was released on 2025-12-01.
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is 6 months newer than Claude Sonnet 4.
May 22, 2025
1.3 years ago
Dec 1, 2025
9 months ago
6mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude Sonnet 4 is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is available from DeepSeek.
Claude Sonnet 4
DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 4 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Sonnet 4 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).