Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4.1 Opus
52
DeepSeek V4 Flash
59
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus unranked · DeepSeek V4 Flash #23
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.
Coding
+17.4 difference
Claude 4.1 Opus
DeepSeek V4 Flash
$15 / $75
$0.14 / $0.28
29 t/s
N/A
1.66s
N/A
200K
1M
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.
DeepSeek V4 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 52. 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.
DeepSeek V4 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 52. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 73.7%.
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 57.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.