Model comparison
DeepSeek V3.2 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. DeepSeek V3.2 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 12 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to DeepSeek V3.2; 26 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- DeepSeek V3.2 only
- 7
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 55.47 versus 55.4. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 94 against 17.1.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 2.1x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V3.2 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | DeepSeek V3.2 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | DeepSeek V3.217.1 | Margin→ 76.9 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 |
| Coding | DeepSeek V3.260.9 | Margin→ 8.9 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 |
| Agentic | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 |
| Knowledge | DeepSeek V3.2Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | DeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | DeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | DeepSeek V3.235 tok/s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | DeepSeek V3.23.75 s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | DeepSeek V3.2128K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claw-EvalSource | 40.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 18.5% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 78.9% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 29.57% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1299 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 34.4% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.9% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 71.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 38.7% | 46.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| CodeforcesSource | — | 2919.0 | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 54.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 24.7% | 43.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.1% | 90.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 10.5% | 33.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -46.7% | -9.7% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 24.2% | 41.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 93.5% | 88.6% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 46.2% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 22.100% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.100% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 94.0% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1204 | 1264 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V3.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 49.0% | 71.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, DeepSeek V3.2 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.47 to 55.4.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek V3.2 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 60.9. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, DeepSeek V3.2 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 17.1. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.