Agentic
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 43.0
- Estimated · #103/152
- DeepSeek V3
- 36.8
- Estimated · #130/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude 4.1 Opus vs DeepSeek V3
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude 4.1 Opus has the higher public score estimate, 42.01 versus 41.51, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude 4.1 Opus
Claude 4.1 Opus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V3 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V3 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Claude 4.1 Opus only
1 Shared
5 DeepSeek V3 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 1
- DeepSeek V3 only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 43.0
- Estimated · #103/151
- DeepSeek V3
- 39.4
- Estimated · #120/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V3
- 41.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V3
- 39.3
- Estimated · #138/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V3
- 26.2
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V3
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- DeepSeek V3
- 39.9
- #103/122
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | DeepSeek V3 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 43.0Estimated · #103/152 | 36.8Estimated · #130/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 43.0Estimated · #103/151 | 39.4Estimated · #120/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 41.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 39.3Estimated · #138/183 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 26.2Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 39.9#103/122 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.0525
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.00082
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0168
- Fits in one request
DeepSeek V3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $4.05
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- DeepSeek V3
- $0.0304
- Does not fit in one request
Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
DeepSeek V3
128K
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not published
DeepSeek V3
$0.07 per 1M cached input tokens
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
DeepSeek V3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
DeepSeek V3
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
DeepSeek V3
Open Weight
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
DeepSeek V3
2024-12-26
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude 4.1 Opus has the higher public score estimate, 42.01 versus 41.51, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.975 vs $0.0168. Cache-heavy agent loop: $4.05 vs $0.0304.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude 4.1 Opus has the larger documented window (200K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude 4.1 Opus
API / mo$67,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
DeepSeek V3
API / mo$1,028
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even1.2B/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the higher public score estimate, 42.01 versus 41.51, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3?
Claude 4.1 Opus scores higher for coding on the public lane, 43 to 39.4. Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V3 are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3?
Claude 4.1 Opus scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 43 to 36.8. Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V3 are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0525 on Claude 4.1 Opus and $0.00082 on DeepSeek V3; repository review costs $0.975 and $0.0168; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $4.05 and $0.0304. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. DeepSeek V3 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3?
Claude 4.1 Opus has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs DeepSeek V3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.