💰 Unit Cost Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) $0.22/1M in · $0.65/1M out
⚡ Latency & Speed Winner Claude 3.5 Haiku 190ms TTFT · 130 tok/s
💻 Coding (SWE) Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) 77.4% SWE-bench · 94.5% HumanEval
🧠 STEM Reasoning Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) 91.3% GPQA · 96.4% MATH-500

Which model is better: Claude 3.5 Haiku or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 72.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.22 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.65 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (3.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (120ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 130 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 91.3% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.

Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)

Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.

Metric / Dimension Claude 3.5 Haiku DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens $0.80 $0.22 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 3.6x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens $4.00 $0.65 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (83.8% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M $0.080 $0.007 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 11.6x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M $1.00 $0.22 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 4.5x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output) 205k (8k out) 1,049k (128k out) DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (5.1x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency 190ms 310ms Claude 3.5 Haiku (120ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput) 130 tok/s 165 tok/s DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+35 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding) 40.6% 77.4% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+36.8% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM) 41.6% 91.3% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+49.7% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline) 71% 87.3% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+16.3% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic) 69.4% 96.4% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+27.0% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR) 52.4 / 100 81.6 / 100 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+29.2 pts)

Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster

Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.

25.0M Tokens
500K 50M 250M 500M+
5.0M Tokens
100K 25M 75M 150M+
50% Cached
0% (Uncached) 25% 50% (Typical Agent) 95% Max

Estimated Monthly Spend

Claude 3.5 Haiku $31.00

$0.80/1M in · $4.00/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.080/1M read · $1.00/1M write

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) $6.09

$0.22/1M in · $0.65/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.007/1M read · $0.22/1M write

Projected Monthly Cost Reduction
$24.91 / mo
(80.4% lower cost with DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp))
Open Full Matchup Analysis →
A

When to Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku

Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku (Anthropic) for rapid customer-facing chat, sub-agent routing, and real-time code autocomplete — offering a 204k context window, 190ms TTFT, and $0.80/1M input pricing ($0.080/1M cached reads).

B

When to Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (DeepSeek) for ultra-low-cost open-weight multimodal MoE built for high-throughput visual document OCR, chart interpretation, and real-time autonomous coding agents — offering a 1,048k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $0.22/1M input pricing ($0.007/1M cached reads).

Related Questions & Decision Factors

Which is cheaper: Claude 3.5 Haiku or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)?

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is cheaper at $0.22/1M input tokens ($0.65/1M output) compared to $0.80/1M input ($4.00/1M output) for Claude 3.5 Haiku.

Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 3.5 Haiku or DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)?

Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers faster first-token latency at 190ms TTFT (130 tok/s throughput) compared to 310ms TTFT (165 tok/s) for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp).

How do Claude 3.5 Haiku and DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?

On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 40.6% versus 77.4% for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp). On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 41.6% versus 91.3% for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (and 69.4% vs 96.4% on MATH-500).

When should you choose Claude 3.5 Haiku?

Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku (Anthropic) for rapid customer-facing chat, sub-agent routing, and real-time code autocomplete — offering a 204k context window, 190ms TTFT, and $0.80/1M input pricing ($0.080/1M cached reads).

When should you choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)?

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (DeepSeek) for ultra-low-cost open-weight multimodal MoE built for high-throughput visual document OCR, chart interpretation, and real-time autonomous coding agents — offering a 1,048k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $0.22/1M input pricing ($0.007/1M cached reads).

Explore High-Priority Related Model Matchups