Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs DeepSeek V3

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
12.5pts
← winning
DeepSeek
44.97/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); DeepSeek V3 #147 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and DeepSeek V3 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 10 to DeepSeek V3.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
4
DeepSeek V3 only
10
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and DeepSeek V3 is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.

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 Opus 4.5 Thinking and DeepSeek V3
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔDeepSeek V3
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V338.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V372.7
MathClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V31.7
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V386.1

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableDeepSeek V3$0.27 input / $1.1 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableDeepSeek V3Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableDeepSeek V3Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KDeepSeek V3128KClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%22.8%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 217Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%35.4%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
LiveCodeBenchSource 37.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 42%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 23.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
AA-LCRSource 74.0%29.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%0.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%14.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%55.7%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%3.6%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%-41.3%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%25.4%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%89.4%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%Not comparable
GPQASource 59.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 75.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 1.724%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12771150Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingDeepSeek V3Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%34.8%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
IFEvalSource 86.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and DeepSeek V3 on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and DeepSeek V3 today?

DeepSeek V3: $0.27 input / $1.10 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
DeepSeek V3
API / mo$1,028
Self-host / mo$18,221
Break-even1.2B/day
Model the full break-even

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.