Model Comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
vs. V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Anthropic, DeepSeek
Recommended Pick
An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
100.0 value score
53.5 reasoning / $0.18/1M
Lowest Price
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
$0.14/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
56.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
50.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) is 21.4x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort).
Reasoning gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) leads V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) by 2.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) leads V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) by 11.1 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) wins 9 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
DeepSeek
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) | De V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.00/1M | $0.14/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.28/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.00/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Release Date | Feb 17, 2026 | Apr 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 63.8 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 56343ms | — |
| Latency | 56343ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 3.1 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 56.4 | 53.5 |
| Intelligence | 51.7 | 46.0 |
| Coding | 50.9 | 39.8 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 87.5% | 86.7% |
| HLE | 30.0% | 27.8% |
| SciCode | 46.8% | 42.0% |
| LCR | 70.7% | 62.7% |
| IFBench | 56.6% | 73.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 75.7% | 95.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 53.0% | 38.6% |
Key Takeaways
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort) offers the best value at $0.14/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) reaches a 50.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
V4 Flash (Reasoning, High Effort)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
