Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek V3.2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
8.8pts
← winning
55.4/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); DeepSeek V3.2 #82 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and DeepSeek V3.2 share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 42 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 2 to DeepSeek V3.2.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Opus 4.5 only
42
DeepSeek V3.2 only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 55.4. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 57.5 against 17.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 4.167% to 2.100%.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.28 input / $0.42 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly 59.5x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.

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 and DeepSeek V3.2
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔDeepSeek V3.2
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin← 40.4DeepSeek V3.217.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 10.8DeepSeek V3.260.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V3.2Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · DeepSeek V3.2

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 4.167%B 2.100%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 4.167%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 2.100%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 20.690%B 22.100%
    Winner: DeepSeek V3.2Δ 1.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; DeepSeek V3.2 scored 22.100%. DeepSeek V3.2 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V3.2$0.28 input / $0.42 outputDeepSeek V3.2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sDeepSeek V3.235 tok/sClaude Opus 4.5 has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sDeepSeek V3.23.75 sClaude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KDeepSeek V3.2128KClaude Opus 4.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%40.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%18.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%78.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%29.57%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%38.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE-RebenchSource —60.9%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —71.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%39.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%0.9%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
GPQASource 87%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%24.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%75.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%10.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-46.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%24.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%93.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%22.100%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%2.100%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12771204Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V3.2Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%49.0%DeepSeek V3.2 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 55.4. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 4.167% and 2.100%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 60.9. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V3.2?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 57.5 versus 17.1. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) 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 22, 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.