Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs DeepSeek V3.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

45.88/100
Margin
9.5pts
winning →
55.4/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V3.2 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 17 to DeepSeek V3.2.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 4.1 Opus only
2
DeepSeek V3.2 only
17
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V3.2 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

DeepSeek V3.2 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 55.4 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 178.6x on output cost alone. Claude 4.1 Opus gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V3.2
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔDeepSeek V3.2
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin 13.6DeepSeek V3.260.9
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.217.1

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputDeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 outputDeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sDeepSeek V3.235 tok/sDeepSeek V3.2 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sDeepSeek V3.23.75 sClaude 4.1 Opus reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KDeepSeek V3.2128KClaude 4.1 Opus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
JobBenchSource 21.9%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 40.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 18.5%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 78.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 29.57%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 60.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 71.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 38.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
AA-LCRSource 39.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.9%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%24.7%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 75.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 10.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -46.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 93.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 22.100%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.100%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12091206Claude 4.1 Opus leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V3.2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 49.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3.2?

DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 55.4 to 45.88.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 60.9. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.