New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)

vs

Which one, when

Both share a 1,000,000-token context window, but they diverge on price and shape: claude-sonnet-5-5 costs about 1.5x more on input ($2 vs $1.32 per million) and about 2.5x more on output ($10 vs $3.96), with cache reads at $0.2 against $0.132. Pick claude-sonnet-5-5 when you need image input alongside text, which deepseek-v4-pro-0813 does not accept. Pick deepseek-v4-pro-0813 for text-only chat, code, tools and reasoning at lower cost, or when a single response must run long, since it allows 393,216 output tokens versus 128,000.

Benchmarks

Claude Sonnet 5.5: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageNo peer higherDeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)13 / 211 / 21
Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) other models measured peer average ★ no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
N/A
62.7%
Cybergym
N/A
83.3%
GDPval-AA v2 Elo · 1508-1769 per Z.ai · 2026-09-04
N/A
1590
GPQA Diamond
N/A
92.4%
Agents' Last Exam
N/A
25.7%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) Δ
Input / 1M tokens $2 $1.32 1.5×
Output / 1M tokens $10 $3.96 2.5×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.2 $0.132 1.5×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) no separate charge -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 76 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Capabilities

Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control always on always on
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option no fixed TTL (evicted when unused)
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens not published

Specs

Claude Sonnet 5.5 DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)
Input modalities text image text
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-28 2026-08-13
Knowledge cutoff 2026-06 -
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 393K
Thinking parameter thinking.type reasoning_effort
Accepted values
thinking.type
  • adaptive (default)
  • between_tools
reasoning_effort
  • the model card documents low
  • high
  • max
Default adaptive, effort high -

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.

out 205 tok latency 3.6 s

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a hidden chain-of-thought with many additional tokens before producing the final answer, which sharply increases compute consumption per request. Those extra reasoning tokens are billed at the same or higher rates, so total usage doubled even though the volume of final outputs stayed similar. We can control this by adjusting reasoning effort, setting token limits, or routing only complex requests through reasoning mode.

out 308 tok (+226 thinking) latency 5.1 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases

**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]

out 444 tok latency 6.7 s

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` was initialized to `0` and only counted adjacent matching pairs, so a run of length `n` produced `n - 1` (or `0` for a single element) instead of `n`. The code also reset to `0` on a change, when the new run should start at length `1`. Initializing `cur` and `best` to `1` fixes both the single-element case and runs ending at the last index.

out 1315 tok (+1130 thinking) latency 16.9 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.

out 300 tok latency 3.5 s

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{"company":"Meridian Robotics","quarter":"September quarter","revenue_usd_m":412,"growth_pct":11.0,"guidance":null}

out 2155 tok (+2121 thinking) latency 26.0 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Claude Sonnet 5.5 passed · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.

out 266 tok latency 3.8 s

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing cross-provider prompt caching in our API gateway. Send a prompt once, and the gateway stores its computed prefix across Anthropic, OpenAI, and other LLM providers. Subsequent requests with the same prompt hit the cache, cutting latency and token costs while keeping outputs consistent across routing decisions and provider failovers. Teams can route identical prompts between providers without reprocessing shared context or lengthy system instructions. How much could you save on repeated prompt prefixes? The cache respects provider-specific key formats, handles TTLs automatically, and works with streaming and batch requests. Enable it with one configuration flag—no changes to your application code. Available today on all plans. Monitor cache hit rates, token savings, and provider-specific performance metrics in the live dashboard.

out 2845 tok (+2694 thinking) latency 25.5 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-sonnet-5-5",
    # model="deepseek-v4-pro-0813",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($1.32 vs $2, 1.5× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Sonnet 5.5 against DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (0813) support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies