Anthropic (14 models) vs DeepSeek (13 models) - compared across composite scores, pricing, capabilities, and context windows.
| Capability | Anthropic | DeepSeek | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
Vision | 14/14 | 0/13 | Anthropic |
Reasoning | 12/14 | 11/13 | Anthropic |
Function Calling | 14/14 | 10/13 | Anthropic |
JSON Mode | 8/14 | 12/13 | DeepSeek |
Web Search | 13/14 | 0/13 | Anthropic |
Streaming | 14/14 | 13/13 | Anthropic |
Image Output | 0/14 | 0/13 | Tie |
| Metric | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|
| Cheapest Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.250 Claude 3 Haiku | $0.140 DeepSeek V4 Flash |
| Cheapest Output (per 1M tokens) | $1.25 | $0.280 |
| Most Expensive Input (per 1M tokens) | $30.00 Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | $0.700 R1 |
| Most Expensive Output (per 1M tokens) | $150.00 | $2.50 |
| Free Models | 0 | 0 |
| Max Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Model | Score | Input $/M | Output $/M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6 (Fast) | 90 | $30.00 | $150.00 |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | 90 | $5.00 | $25.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 85 | $3.00 | $15.00 |
| Claude Opus 4.5 | 85 | $5.00 | $25.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 82 | $3.00 | $15.00 |
| Claude Opus 4 | 82 | $15.00 | $75.00 |
| Claude Opus 4.7 | 79 | $5.00 | $25.00 |
| Claude Opus 4.1 | 75 | $15.00 | $75.00 |
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet (thinking) | 75 | $3.00 | $15.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 4 | 74 | $3.00 | $15.00 |
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet | 73 | $3.00 | $15.00 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 70 | $1.00 | $5.00 |
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | 58 | $0.800 | $4.00 |
| Claude 3 Haiku | 50 | $0.250 | $1.25 |
| Model | Score | Input $/M | Output $/M |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 0528 | 79 | $0.500 | $2.15 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 76 | $0.435 | $0.870 |
| R1 | 73 | $0.700 | $2.50 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 72 | $0.140 | $0.280 |
| DeepSeek V3 0324 | 72 | $0.200 | $0.770 |
| DeepSeek V3.2 | 70 | $0.252 | $0.378 |
| DeepSeek V3.2 Exp | 70 | $0.270 | $0.410 |
| DeepSeek V3 | 70 | $0.320 | $0.890 |
| DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus | 69 | $0.270 | $0.950 |
| DeepSeek V3.1 | 69 | $0.150 | $0.750 |
| R1 Distill Llama 70B | 42 | $0.700 | $0.800 |
| DeepSeek V3.2 Speciale | 40 | $0.287 | $0.431 |
| R1 Distill Qwen 32B | 37 | $0.290 | $0.290 |
Compare any two AI providers side-by-side.
DeepSeek's entire portfolio (11 models) focuses on text-only processing with 10/11 supporting reasoning, while Anthropic built vision into all 13 models from the ground up. This architectural decision allows DeepSeek to offer significantly lower prices ($0.290-$2.50 vs Anthropic's $1.25-$150.00 per 1M tokens) but limits their applicability to multimodal use cases.
The gap represents a 43% performance difference at the top end, with Anthropic's average score (55/100) exceeding DeepSeek's best model. However, DeepSeek's top model costs $2.50/1M tokens compared to Claude Sonnet's likely mid-tier pricing, making DeepSeek potentially 10-20x more cost-effective for applications where 46/100 performance suffices.
Anthropic invested heavily in extending context windows across their 13-model portfolio, achieving 6x larger contexts than DeepSeek's maximum. This makes Anthropic superior for document analysis and long-form content generation, while DeepSeek's 164K context still handles 99% of typical API requests at 5-60x lower cost.
DeepSeek's 11 open-source models allow full customization and on-premise deployment, while Anthropic offers 0 open-source options despite web search support. Organizations prioritizing data sovereignty or custom fine-tuning would accept the web search limitation to gain complete model control at $0.290-$2.50 per 1M tokens.
Anthropic's 100% function calling coverage makes it ideal for agent-based systems and API orchestration, while DeepSeek's 73% coverage creates integration friction. The 3 DeepSeek models lacking function calling likely target pure text generation use cases where the $0.290/1M token pricing delivers exceptional value without tool-use overhead.
Open-source models typically trade performance for transparency and customizability - DeepSeek's 11 models prioritize accessibility over benchmark optimization. Anthropic's closed development allows focused performance tuning, achieving scores up to 66/100, but at 4-60x higher prices and zero deployment flexibility.