deepseek-v3.2 vs sonar-pro
deepseek-v3.2 is 10.7× cheaper on input than sonar-pro.
| deepseek-v3.2 | sonar-pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M | $0.28 | $3.00 |
| Cached input / 1M | — | — |
| Output / 1M | $0.40 | $15.00 |
| Context window | 164K | 200K |
| Max output | 164K | 8K |
| Provider | DeepSeek | Perplexity |
| Vision | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Token count | estimated | estimated |
Capability for the money
Independent measurement · Artificial Analysis · read 2026-08-11deepseek-v3.2 is 19.4× cheaper than sonar-pro and scores higher on every benchmark they share — there is no case for paying more here.
Coding
writing and fixing code
LiveCodeBenchdeepseek-v3.2 +31.8
Hard reasoning
graduate-level science and multi-step analysis
GPQA Diamonddeepseek-v3.2 +17.3
Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, deepseek-v3.2 returns 216.8 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 7.1 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.
Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. No published following instructions or tool use score for one of these models, so those lenses are omitted. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.
Which to pick
- Cheaper input: deepseek-v3.2
- Cheaper output: deepseek-v3.2
- Larger context: sonar-pro
- Better at coding: deepseek-v3.2 (59.3% vs 27.5% on LiveCodeBench)
- Better at hard reasoning: deepseek-v3.2 (75.1% vs 57.8% on GPQA Diamond)
List price is not production cost. Output length, cache hit rate, retries and task quality move the real number more than the headline rate does — price your own prompt on the token ledger before deciding.
Related comparisons
deepseek-v3.2 detail · sonar-pro detail · All DeepSeek pricing · All comparisons