Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

45.88/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 45 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude 4.1 Opus only
1
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
45
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude 4.1 Opus makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 3 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

Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max). That is roughly 86.2x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 Pro (Max)
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin← 3.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9
AgenticClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 80.6%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 6.1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 80.6%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 Pro (Max)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
JobBenchSource 21.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —67.9%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —83.4%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —48.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1307Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —51.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —36.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —96.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —40.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —932Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —40.4%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —84.4%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —38.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —25.8%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —46.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —64%Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%80.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
CodeforcesSource —3206.0Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —55.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.2%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —67.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —49.93%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —59.4%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —50.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
MRCR 1MSource —83.5%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —62.0%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —66.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource —12.9%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%44.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MMLU-ProSource —87.5%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —57.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —84.4%Not comparable
GPQASource —90.1%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.1%Not comparable
HLESource —37.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —88.8%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —35.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-10.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —43.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —94.0%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —50.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
HMMT Feb 2026Source —95.2%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —89.8%Not comparable
ApexSource —38.3%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —90.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12071264DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-IFBenchSource —76.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude 4.1 Opus and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 70.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
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.