Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
76
DeepSeek V3.2
57
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #13 · DeepSeek V3.2 unranked
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.
Coding
+5.0 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
DeepSeek V3.2
$5 / $25
$0.28 / $0.42
46 t/s
35 t/s
1.01s
3.75s
200K
128K
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.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 76 to 57. 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 coding, where it averages 65.9 against 60.9.
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.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 76 to 57.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 60.9. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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.