As AI models advance, their programming and software development capabilities have become key benchmarks. Two leading contenders in the coding scene are DeepSeek V3 and Claude 3.7. DeepSeek V3-0324, the latest from DeepSeek AI, comes with promising benchmark results on coding tasks. Meanwhile, Anthropic’s newest model, Claude 3.7, is a stronger generalist AI with superior contextual understanding and coding capabilities. In this DeepSeek V3 vs Claude 3.7 comparison, we’ll be looking into the performance of both these models across standard benchmarks as well as real-life applications, to find the ideal coding assistant.
DeepSeek V3-0324 is the latest AI model from DeepSeek AI, designed to deliver high performance in coding and reasoning tasks. This model builds on the success of its predecessors, incorporating advancements in efficiency, and usability. With an emphasis on improving both developer experience and accessibility. DeepSeek V3-0324 is positioned as a powerful tool for AI-driven applications.
Here are some of the key features of DeepSeek ’s latest model:
Below are the two primary methods for accessing DeepSeek V3-0324.
For people looking to incorporate DeepSeek V3-0324 into their applications, the API provides a flexible and efficient solution. The API structure remains unchanged from previous versions, ensuring an easy transition for existing users.
Here’s how to access DeepSeek V3-0324 via API:
Visit DeepSeek AI’s official website and create an account. Once registered, navigate to the developer section and request an API key. This key will be required to authenticate requests.
Once you have the API key, you can start making requests. Use the designated model name, such as model=’deepseek-chat’. Ensure your API request follows DeepSeek’s documentation, including proper authentication headers and request formatting.
No Modifications Needed for Existing Users: If you have previously integrated DeepSeek’s API, no changes are required in your setup. Simply update the model reference to DeepSeek V3-0324 if there is any change in it, and your application will continue functioning seamlessly.
If you prefer direct access without API integration, DeepSeek V3-0324 is available through DeepSeek’s official platforms. These platforms provide an interactive interface, allowing users to test the model’s capabilities in real-time.
To access DeepSeek V3-0324 from their official website follow this:
Now let’s start with the DeepSeek V3-0324 vs Claude 3.7 comparison. To evaluate the programming capabilities of DeepSeek V3-0324 and Claude 3.7, we will test them on different coding tasks. These tasks will help us assess how well each model performs across varying levels of complexity.
The comparison will be based on four key metrics:
By analyzing these aspects, we aim to determine which model is a more reliable and effective coding assistant across different programming challenges.
Prompt: “You are given an array with unique elements of stalls[ ], which denote the position of a stall. You are also given an integer k which denotes the number of aggressive cows. Your task is to assign stalls to k cows such that the minimum distance between any two of them is the maximum possible.”
def aggressive_cows(stalls, k):
# Sort the stalls to easily calculate distances between them
stalls.sort()
n = len(stalls)
# Initialize the binary search bounds
left = 0 # Minimum possible distance
right = stalls[-1] - stalls[0] # Maximum possible distance
best = 0 # To store the maximum minimum distance found
# Binary search to find the maximum minimum distance
while left <= right:
mid = (left + right) // 2 # Current candidate for minimum distance
count = 1 # Number of cows placed, starting with the first stall
last_position = stalls[0] # Position of the last placed cow
# Try to place the cows with at least 'mid' distance apart
for i in range(1, n):
if stalls[i] - last_position >= mid:
count += 1
last_position = stalls[i]
# Early exit if all cows are placed
if count == k:
break
# If we can place all cows with 'mid' distance, try for a larger distance
if count >= k:
best = mid
left = mid + 1
# Otherwise, try for a smaller distance
else:
right = mid - 1
return best
# Test Case 1:
stalls1 = [1, 2, 4, 8, 9]
k1 = 3
print("Maximum minimum distance:", aggressive_cows(stalls1, k1))
print()
# Test Case 2:
stalls2 = [10, 1, 2, 7, 5]
k2 = 3
print("Maximum minimum distance:", aggressive_cows(stalls2, k2))
print()
# Test Case 3:
stalls3 = [2, 12, 11, 3, 26, 7]
k3 = 5
print("Maximum minimum distance:", aggressive_cows(stalls3, k3))
DeepSeek V3-0324 Output
def is_possible_distance(stalls, k, min_distance):
"""
Check if it's possible to place k cows with at least min_distance between them
Args:
stalls (list): Sorted list of stall positions
k (int): Number of cows to place
min_distance (int): Minimum distance to check between cows
Returns:
bool: True if possible to place cows, False otherwise
"""
# Place the first cow at the first stall
cows_placed = 1
last_cow_position = stalls[0]
# Try to place remaining cows
for i in range(1, len(stalls)):
# If distance between current stall and last cow's position is
# at least min_distance, place a cow here
if stalls[i] - last_cow_position >= min_distance:
cows_placed += 1
last_cow_position = stalls[i]
# If we've placed all k cows, return True
if cows_placed == k:
return True
# Couldn't place all k cows
return False
def aggressive_cows(stalls, k):
"""
Find the maximum possible minimum distance between k cows
Args:
stalls (list): List of stall positions
k (int): Number of cows
Returns:
int: Maximum possible minimum distance between cows
"""
# Sort the stalls
stalls.sort()
# Binary search range is from 1 to max possible distance
left = 1
right = stalls[-1] - stalls[0]
result = 0
# Binary search to find maximum minimum distance
while left <= right:
mid = (left + right) // 2
# If we can place k cows with mid as minimum distance
if is_possible_distance(stalls, k, mid):
# Try to maximize the distance
result = mid
left = mid + 1
else:
# Reduce the distance
right = mid - 1
return result
# Test cases
test_cases = [
([1, 2, 4, 8, 9], 3),
([10, 1, 2, 7, 5], 3),
([2, 12, 11, 3, 26, 7], 5)
]
for stalls, k in test_cases:
print(f"\nStalls: {stalls}, Cows: {k}")
print(f"Maximum minimum distance: {aggressive_cows(stalls, k)}")
Claude Output 3.7
Claude 3.7’s code is more modular, readable, and well-documented with clear function docstrings. It avoids unnecessary binary search iterations, improving efficiency. DeepSeek V3-0324 is slightly more optimized with an early exit but lacks error handling. Claude’s structured approach makes adding validation easier, though both lack explicit checks. Overall, Claude 3.7 wins for maintainability, while DeepSeek V3-0324 is marginally faster in execution.
Score: DeepSeek V3-0324: 0 | Claude 3.7: 1
Also Read: Building AI Application with DeepSeek-V3
Prompt: “Generate an HTML and CSS code snippet that creates an animated scene of a boat moving smoothly across the water. The water should have realistic ripples around the boat to enhance the visual effect. Use CSS animations for fluid movement and ripple effects. Ensure the design is visually appealing and runs smoothly on modern browsers.”
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Animated Boat on Water</title>
<style>
body {
margin: 0;
overflow: hidden;
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #87CEEB 0%, #1E90FF 100%);
height: 100vh;
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
align-items: center;
}
.scene {
position: relative;
width: 100%;
height: 300px;
overflow: hidden;
}
.water {
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100px;
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #1E90FF 0%, #00BFFF 50%, #1E90FF 100%);
}
DeepSeek V3-0324 Output
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Boat on Waves Animation</title>
<style>
body, html {
margin: 0;
height: 100%;
overflow: hidden;
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #87CEEB, #4682B4);
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
align-items: center;
}
.ocean {
width: 100%;
height: 40%;
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(65,105,225,0.7), rgba(30,144,255,0.9));
overflow: hidden;
}
Claude3.7’s Output
DeepSeek V3-0324’s boat floats perfectly with better graphics, creating a visually appealing and realistic scene. Claude’s boat appears upside down, reducing realism. DeepSeek V3-0324’s ripples enhance water dynamics, while Claude’s animation lacks fluidity. Both run smoothly, but DeepSeek V3-0324’s design is more polished and visually engaging. Overall, DeepSeek V3-0324 provides superior aesthetics and accurate movement, making it the better model for animation.
Score: DeepSeek V3-0324: 1 | Claude 3.7: 1
Prompt: “Generate a Python script for the classic Snake game using the pygame library.”
def game_loop():
"""Main game loop."""
game_over = False
game_close = False
# Initial snake position
x1 = dis_width / 2
y1 = dis_height / 2
# Snake movement
x1_change = 0
y1_change = 0
# Snake body
snake_list = []
length_of_snake = 1
# Food position
foodx = round(random.randrange(0, dis_width - snake_block) / 10.0) * 10.0
foody = round(random.randrange(0, dis_height - snake_block) / 10.0) * 10.0
while not game_over:
while game_close:
# Game over screen
dis.fill(white)
message("You Lost! Press Q-Quit or C-Play Again", red)
your_score(length_of_snake - 1)
pygame.display.update()
# Check for player input after game over
for event in pygame.event.get():
if event.type == pygame.KEYDOWN:
if event.key == pygame.K_q:
game_over = True
game_close = False
if event.key == pygame.K_c:
game_loop()
# Handle keyboard events
for event in pygame.event.get():
if event.type == pygame.QUIT:
game_over = True
if event.type == pygame.KEYDOWN:
if event.key == pygame.K_LEFT:
x1_change = -snake_block
y1_change = 0
elif event.key == pygame.K_RIGHT:
x1_change = snake_block
y1_change = 0
elif event.key == pygame.K_UP:
y1_change = -snake_block
x1_change = 0
elif event.key == pygame.K_DOWN:
y1_change = snake_block
x1_change = 0
# Check for boundary collision
if x1 >= dis_width or x1 < 0 or y1 >= dis_height or y1 < 0:
game_close = True
# Update snake position
x1 += x1_change
y1 += y1_change
dis.fill(white)
# Draw food
pygame.draw.rect(dis, red, [foodx, foody, snake_block, snake_block])
# Update snake body
snake_head = []
snake_head.append(x1)
snake_head.append(y1)
snake_list.append(snake_head)
# Remove extra segments if snake hasn't eaten
if len(snake_list) > length_of_snake:
del snake_list[0]
# Check for self-collision
for x in snake_list[:-1]:
if x == snake_head:
game_close = True
# Draw snake and score
our_snake(snake_block, snake_list)
your_score(length_of_snake - 1)
pygame.display.update()
# Check if snake ate food
if x1 == foodx and y1 == foody:
foodx = round(random.randrange(0, dis_width - snake_block) / 10.0) * 10.0
foody = round(random.randrange(0, dis_height - snake_block) / 10.0) * 10.0
length_of_snake += 1
# Control game speed
clock.tick(snake_speed)
# Quit pygame
pygame.quit()
quit()
# Start the game
game_loop()
DeepSeek V3-0324 Output
def main():
# Initialize game objects
snake = Snake()
food = Food(snake)
score = 0
# Font for displaying score
font = pygame.font.Font(None, 36)
# Game loop
running = True
while running:
# Event handling
for event in pygame.event.get():
if event.type == pygame.QUIT:
running = False
# Handle keyboard input for snake direction
if event.type == pygame.KEYDOWN:
if event.key == pygame.K_UP and snake.direction != (0, 1):
snake.direction = (0, -1)
elif event.key == pygame.K_DOWN and snake.direction != (0, -1):
snake.direction = (0, 1)
elif event.key == pygame.K_LEFT and snake.direction != (1, 0):
snake.direction = (-1, 0)
elif event.key == pygame.K_RIGHT and snake.direction != (-1, 0):
snake.direction = (1, 0)
# Move the snake
snake.move()
# Check for food collision
if snake.body[0] == food.position:
snake.grow = True
food.position = food.generate_position(snake)
score += 1
# Check for self-collision
if snake.check_collision():
running = False
# Clear the screen
screen.fill(BLACK)
# Draw game objects
snake.draw(screen)
food.draw(screen)
# Render score
score_text = font.render(f'Score: {score}', True, WHITE)
screen.blit(score_text, (10, 10))
# Update display
pygame.display.flip()
# Control game speed
clock.tick(10) # 10 frames per second
# Game over screen
screen.fill(BLACK)
game_over_text = font.render('Game Over', True, WHITE)
final_score_text = font.render(f'Final Score: {score}', True, WHITE)
screen.blit(game_over_text, (WIDTH//2 - game_over_text.get_width()//2, HEIGHT//2 - 50))
screen.blit(final_score_text, (WIDTH//2 - final_score_text.get_width()//2, HEIGHT//2 + 50))
pygame.display.flip()
# Wait for a moment before closing
pygame.time.wait(2000)
# Quit Pygame
pygame.quit()
# Run the game
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Claude Output
DeepSeek V3-0324’s Snake game correctly ends on border collision but requires pressing a key to start, which adds minor friction. Claude’s version fails to detect border collisions, reducing the accuracy of gameplay. DeepSeek V3-0324’s game auto-ends on simultaneously pressing the left and right keys, which can be frustrating. Overall, Claude 3.7 ensures better game logic, while DeepSeekV3-0324 requires fixes for a complete experience.
Score: DeepSeek V3-0324: 1 | Claude 3.7: 2
Code Files: For the complete version of the code files please click here.
Metric | Task 1: Aggressive Cows | Task 2: Boat Animation | Task 3: Snake Game | Overall Verdict |
Code Quality | Claude 3.7 is more modular and well-documented. | DeepSeek V3-0324 has better visuals and structure. | DeepSeek-V3 has better collision handling. | DeepSeek V3-0324 excels in execution, and Claude 3.7 in readability. |
Efficiency | DeepSeek V3-0324 is slightly faster with an early exit. | Both run smoothly, but DeepSeek V3-0324’s animation is more polished. | DeepSeek V3-0324 handles border collisions well. | DeepSeek V3-0324 offers better optimization. |
Error Handling | Claude 3.7 lacks explicit checks but is easier to validate. | Claude’s boat is upside down, reducing realism. | Claude 3.7 fails to detect border collisions. | Claude 3.7 requires fixes for execution issues. |
Visual Appeal | Not applicable. | DeepSeek V3-0324 has better graphics and ripple effects. | Not applicable. | DeepSeek V3-0324 leads in aesthetics. |
Execution Accuracy | Both work correctly, but DeepSeek V3-0324 lacks validation. | DeepSeek V3-0324’s boat floats perfectly, while Claude 3.7’s is misaligned. | DeepSeek’s game ends correctly; Claude 3.7 does not detect border collisions. | DeepSeek V3-0324 provides better functional correctness. |
Final Verdict | Claude 3.7 is better for maintainability, and DeepSeek V3-0324 for speed. | DeepSeek’s output is visually superior and well-executed. | DeepSeek V3-0324 ensures better game logic, while Claude 3.7 has major flaws. | DeepSeek-V3 wins overall with better execution and visuals. |
Also Read: DeepSeek V3 vs GPT-4o: Which is Better?
Now, let’s get into the benchmark results of both these models.
This benchmark measures the LLM’s coding ability in popular languages, and whether it can write new code that integrates into existing code.
DeepSeek V3-0324 achieved around 55% accuracy in “Diff-like format”, at a moderate cost. Meanwhile, Claude 3.7 (32K thinking tokens) achieved around 65-67% accuracy, which is the highest among the models tested. Even Claude 3.7 (No thinking) achieved around 60% accuracy. However, these models come at a higher cost compared to DeepSeek V3-0324.
Model | Arena Score | Rank (UB) | Rank (StyleCtrl) | Votes | Organization | License |
DeepSeek V3-0324 | 1318 | 12 | 12 | 22,848 | DeepSeek | DeepSeek |
Claude 3.7 (Thinking-32K) | 1302 | 14 | 3 | 4,487 | Anthropic | Proprietary |
Benchmark Insights:
Here’s a breakdown of the benchmark results for DeepSeek-V3 0324 and Claude-Sonnet 3.7:
DeepSeek V3 0324: 81.2% | Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 75.9%
Analysis: DeepSeek V3 0324 shows a stronger ability to handle multitask language understanding and complex reasoning, with a higher score than Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
DeepSeek V3 0324: 86.1% | Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 80.7%
Analysis: DeepSeek V3 0324 again outperforms Claude 3.7 Sonnet in answering complex general knowledge and reasoning questions, showcasing better question-answering capabilities.
DeepSeek V3 0324: 68.4% | Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 60.1%
Analysis: DeepSeek V3 0324 has a higher score in mathematical problem-solving, indicating stronger proficiency in solving a wide range of math-related tasks compared to Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
DeepSeek V3 0324: 94.0% | Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 82.2%
Analysis: DeepSeek V3 0324 excels in advanced reasoning tasks, significantly outperforming Claude 3.7 Sonnet in more complex, multi-step tasks.
DeepSeek V3 0324: 90.2% | Claude 3.7 Sonnet: 82.6%
Analysis: DeepSeek V3 0324 scores higher in coding and software development tasks, reflecting its better understanding of real-time programming, debugging, and coding challenges.
DeepSeek V3-0324 stands out with its accuracy, efficiency, and strong execution across multiple tasks. It ensures correct functionality in coding challenges, animations, and gameplay logic, making it reliable for real-world applications. Claude 3.7, while well-structured and readable, struggles with execution flaws that impact usability. DeepSeek V3-0324’s superior optimization and polished output make it a strong choice for developers who prioritize performance and correctness. Meanwhile Claude 3.7 remains useful for those who value clean and maintainable code.
A. DeepSeek V3-0324 generally delivers more accurate and efficient code execution, while Claude 3.7 focuses on better structure and documentation.
A. DeepSeek V3-0324 produces more polished and visually appealing animations, as seen in the boat animation task.
A. Claude 3.7 is better for beginners due to its well-structured code and clear documentation, making it easier to understand and modify.
A. DeepSeek V3-0324 is better for real-world applications due to its superior execution accuracy, but Claude 3.7 is valuable for structured development.
A. DeepSeek V3-0324 generally executes tasks faster and with fewer iterations, while Claude 3.7 sometimes introduces unnecessary steps that slow down performance.