Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs DeepSeek V4 Flash

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
13.0pts
winning →
58.88/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Flash #61 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V4 Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 20 to DeepSeek V4 Flash.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 4.1 Opus only
2
DeepSeek V4 Flash only
20
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick DeepSeek V4 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

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 V4 Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.88 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 $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash. That is roughly 267.9x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.

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 V4 Flash
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔDeepSeek V4 Flash
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin 10.3DeepSeek V4 Flash64.2
AgenticClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Flash49.1
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Flash38.8
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Flash40.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · DeepSeek V4 Flash
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 73.7%
    Winner: Claude 4.1 OpusΔ 0.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 73.7%. Claude 4.1 Opus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sDeepSeek V4 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sDeepSeek V4 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KDeepSeek V4 Flash1MDeepSeek V4 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashResult
JobBenchSource 21.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 49.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 64%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 40.7%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 57.8%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 54.35%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%73.7%Claude 4.1 Opus leads
SWE-bench ProSource 49.1%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 69.7%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 49.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashResult
MRCR 1MSource 37.5%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource 15.5%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 83%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 23.1%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource 71.5%Not comparable
GPQASource 71.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 71.2%Not comparable
HLESource 8.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source 40.8%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource 41.9%Not comparable
ApexSource 1.0%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource 9.3%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 FlashResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12071238DeepSeek V4 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V4 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.88 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 73.7%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V4 Flash?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 64.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 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.