In 2026, frontier coding models have converged from "whose parameters are biggest" to four hard questions: how long is the context, does it think, can it plug into existing toolchains, and can you reach it from inside China. DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 challenges Claude and GPT-5.6 head-on with three cards - 1M context, Anthropic API compatibility, and native availability; Claude defends with ecosystem and stability; GPT-5.6-Cyber plays reasoning and engineering; Gemini stakes out long context and multimodal. The four differ enough in positioning, pricing, and reach that a wrong pick wastes tokens and can leave your workflow unable to connect. This comparison lays them out side by side.
Boundary first. This piece is based on DeepSeek's official API docs (fetched 2026-08-13; DeepSeek-side data is verifiable field by field) plus each model's official site and public comparison materials, as of 2026-08-12. Competitor specs and pricing (Claude / GPT-5.6 / Gemini) are "per the official site"; this is a representative comparison, not a personal full benchmark. This batch also published the DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 hotspot (news and landscape); this piece covers the "micro-comparison of four models" and complements it.
1. First Distinguish: The Four Models' Lane Positions
Four easy-to-confuse positions, drawn clearly. DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813: a Chinese frontier model, 1M context, thinking mode on by default, native Anthropic API compatibility (can substitute for Claude in existing toolchains), natively available in China. Claude (Opus 5 tier): Anthropic's flagship, ~200K context, Extended Thinking, the most mature tool-calling and agent ecosystem, requires a VPN in China. GPT-5.6-Cyber: OpenAI's reasoning-oriented flagship (see our earlier GPT-5.6-Cyber coverage), strong in reasoning and engineering, OpenAI format, requires a VPN in China. Gemini 3: Google's flagship, long context and multimodal are the signature, Google format, requires a VPN in China.
Anthropic API compatibility is a core selection dimension - called out separately. This is DeepSeek's sharpest differentiator this round: it turned its interface into an Anthropic-format compatibility layer (base_url https://api.deepseek.com/anthropic), so code calling Claude, terminals running Claude Code, and open-source agents like Cline that support a custom base URL can switch to DeepSeek by changing the base_url and key. Claude is "native Anthropic"; GPT-5.6 and Gemini use their own formats and need a conversion layer to enter the Claude toolchain. In short: if you're already in the Claude ecosystem and want to cut costs, DeepSeek is the lowest-switching-cost substitute; if you're in the OpenAI ecosystem, GPT-5.6 is smoother; for long multimodal documents, look at Gemini.
2. Capability Comparison: The Four-Model Spec Sheet
Four representative models, compared on context, thinking mode, Anthropic compatibility, pricing, and China availability.
| Model | Context | Thinking mode | Anthropic API compat | Output price/M tokens | China availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | 1M | Default on | Native | ¥6 | Native |
| Claude Opus 5 | ~200K | Extended Thinking | Native | Per official site (higher) | VPN required |
| GPT-5.6-Cyber | Per official site | Reasoning tier | No (OpenAI format) | Per official site | VPN required |
| Gemini 3 | Long context (per official site) | Supported | No (Google format) | Per official site | VPN required |
A few points. First, DeepSeek is the most aggressive in this group on context (1M) and output (384K) - swallowing a mid-size codebase whole for a long rewrite is its range. Second, all four support thinking (DeepSeek on by default, Claude's Extended Thinking, GPT-5.6's reasoning tier, Gemini supported), but DeepSeek sets it as the default, saving a manual switch - and meaning thinking tokens are billed by default. Third, only DeepSeek and Claude occupy "native" on Anthropic API compatibility - the key switch for entering the Claude toolchain. Fourth, China availability is DeepSeek's unique structural advantage: the other three all require a VPN in China, while DeepSeek is natively reachable - for Chinese developers that's not a nice-to-have, it's a hard requirement. This is a representative comparison, not a personal full benchmark.
3. Broken Down: Each Model's Best Range
DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813: 1M context + Anthropic compatibility + native availability. This round's breaker. 1M context / 384K output can ingest a codebase whole for long rewrites; thinking mode is on by default; Anthropic API compatibility lets it plug directly into Claude Code, Cline, and other toolchains. Output at ¥6/M and cache-hit input at only ¥0.025/M makes it the cheapest in this group. Strength is the combination of "low cost + long context + reusable Claude toolchain + native China availability." Weaknesses: Anthropic compatibility is an interface layer, not capability equivalence - complex agent workflows migrated over need regression testing; Pro concurrency is only 500; an official price-hike warning is posted. Best range: Chinese developers, cost-sensitive teams, those already in the Claude ecosystem wanting a substitute, and anyone needing long context to chew through large codebases. Pricing ¥6/M output, per official site. China availability: native.
Claude Opus 5: The most mature ecosystem, defending on stability. Anthropic's flagship, ~200K context, Extended Thinking, with the deepest polish on tool calling and the agent ecosystem - the official Claude Code CLI, native Cline support, and a large body of open-source agents targeting it as the primary model. Strength is native toolchain fit and workflow stability. Weaknesses: context below DeepSeek's 1M, higher pricing (per official site), VPN required in China. Best range: teams that depend on the native Claude experience, don't mind paying, and want the steadiest agent workflow. China availability: VPN required.
GPT-5.6-Cyber: Reasoning and engineering. OpenAI's reasoning-oriented flagship, strong in complex reasoning, engineering integration, and OpenAI-ecosystem alignment. OpenAI format - entering the Claude toolchain needs a conversion layer. Weaknesses: context and pricing per official site, VPN required in China, not natively compatible with the Claude toolchain. Best range: teams already in the OpenAI ecosystem that value reasoning depth and use the OpenAI SDK. China availability: VPN required.
Gemini 3: Long context and multimodal. Google's flagship, with long context and multimodal (image, text, code mixed) as the signature, suited for long-document analysis and cross-modal tasks. Google format. Weaknesses: needs conversion for both Claude and OpenAI toolchains, VPN required in China, pricing per official site. Best range: teams that want long-document multimodal processing and are in the Google ecosystem. China availability: VPN required.
4. Pricing Comparison and Selection Advice
The second table looks at landing: output price, cache-hit price, China availability. Prices all "per the official site."
| Model | Output price/M | Cache-hit input/M | China availability |
|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 | ¥6 | ¥0.025 | Native |
| DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 | ¥2 | ¥0.02 | Native |
| Claude Opus 5 | Per official site (higher) | Per official site | VPN required |
| GPT-5.6-Cyber | Per official site | Per official site | VPN required |
| Gemini 3 | Per official site | Per official site | VPN required |
Selection, by need, in the most direct terms. For low cost + long context + native China availability pick DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813: 1M context, ¥6/M output, cache-hit ¥0.025/M, callable directly in China - the highest on both cost-effectiveness and reach in this group. For the steadiest agent workflow inside the Claude ecosystem pick Claude Opus 5: native toolchain, the most mature stability - the first choice if budget allows and a VPN is fine. For reasoning depth in the OpenAI ecosystem pick GPT-5.6-Cyber. For long multimodal documents pick Gemini 3. The practical combo for most Chinese developers: DeepSeek-V4-Pro as the workhorse (hooked to Claude Code or Cline to cut cost), with Claude reserved for complex stability-sensitive tasks. On a tight budget, DeepSeek-V4-Flash (¥2/M) for high-throughput light work.
Three pitfalls. One, Anthropic compatibility ≠ capability equivalence. DeepSeek plugs into the Claude toolchain and runs, but tool-call details, prompt-caching behavior, and long-context stability differ from native Claude - run regression on real tasks before a production project. Two, thinking mode is on by default - don't cost it at the headline unit price. DeepSeek's thinking mode emits reasoning tokens before answering, and they're billed; long tasks consume more than the headline suggests. Claude's Extended Thinking is similar. To save, explicitly switch to non-thinking. Three, don't ignore China reachability. Claude/GPT/Gemini all require a VPN in China - a hidden cost and compliance risk for Chinese teams. DeepSeek's native availability is a structural advantage, but its price-hike warning means the low-price window may narrow; if you depend heavily, push cache-hit rates now.
5. Common Questions
Q1: Can DeepSeek-V4-Pro directly replace Claude for coding? A1: Not a simple equivalence. DeepSeek natively supports Anthropic API compatibility and plugs into Claude Code, Cline, and other toolchains with low switching cost. But interface compatibility isn't capability equivalence - tool-call details, prompt-caching behavior, and long-context stability still differ, so complex agent workflows migrated over need regression testing. For low cost + long context + China availability pick DeepSeek; for the steadiest native experience pick Claude.
Q2: Which of the four has the longest context? A2: DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 at 1M (max output 384K) is the most aggressive in this group and can ingest a mid-size codebase whole. Claude Opus 5 is ~200K. Gemini 3 is known for long context (per official site). GPT-5.6-Cyber per official site. Specific values per each official site; this is a representative comparison.
Q3: What's the practical benefit of DeepSeek's Anthropic API compatibility?
A3: Code calling Claude, terminals running Claude Code, and open-source agents like Cline that support a custom base URL can switch by pointing base_url to https://api.deepseek.com/anthropic and swapping in a DeepSeek key. There's also model-name mapping: claude-opus-prefixed names auto-route to deepseek-v4-pro. You get the Claude toolchain at DeepSeek's price.
Q4: Which should Chinese developers pick? A4: Default to DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813. Reasons: natively available (the other three need a VPN), 1M context, ¥6/M output, and it plugs into the Claude toolchain. A common combo: DeepSeek as the workhorse (hooked to Claude Code or Cline), with Claude (VPN needed) reserved for complex stability-sensitive tasks. High-throughput light work goes to DeepSeek-V4-Flash (¥2/M). Note DeepSeek has a price-hike warning.
Q5: Does thinking mode being on by default cost more? A5: Yes. Thinking mode emits reasoning tokens before answering, and they're billed. DeepSeek-V4-Pro's thinking mode is on by default, so long tasks consume more tokens than non-thinking. Claude's Extended Thinking is similar. For cost-sensitive scenarios, explicitly switch to non-thinking or turn thinking off. The headline unit price isn't the actual bill - measure on real tasks.
References
- DeepSeek official API docs · Models & Pricing: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/zh-cn/quick_start/pricing
- DeepSeek official API docs · Using the Anthropic API: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/zh-cn/guides/anthropic_api
- Claude / Anthropic official site (pricing and context per official site): https://www.anthropic.com
- OpenAI GPT-5.6-Cyber (pricing and specs per official site): https://openai.com
- Google Gemini (pricing and specs per official site): https://gemini.google.com
- Related on this site: DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813 Hotspot ｜ Cline + DeepSeek Open-Source Analysis ｜ DeepSeek + Claude Code SOP ｜ Claude Code vs Cursor vs Codex