Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4.1 Opus
51
DeepSeek V3.2
57
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.
Coding
+13.6 difference
Claude 4.1 Opus
DeepSeek V3.2
$15 / $75
$0.28 / $0.42
29 t/s
35 t/s
1.66s
3.75s
200K
128K
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.
DeepSeek V3.2 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 57 to 51. 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.
DeepSeek V3.2 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 57 to 51.
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.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.