Skip to main content
BenchLM

Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Updated September 27, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 12 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo

Anthropic

55.09/100

Supported · Public rank #54

90% interval 42.9–67.3

Model B
DeepSeek logo

DeepSeek

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.5 only
33
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 only
30
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Claude Opus 4.5How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

43.5Claude Opus 4.5—DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
30.9
Estimated · #65/105
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 15 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
43.5
Estimated · #50/135
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 5 vs 15 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
73.2
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
57.0
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
23.5
#48/50
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
49.4
Estimated · #58/158
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 8 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
82.9
#2/12
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
30.6
#114/124
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
57.9
#6/7
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
79.9
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 4 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5
$0.0175
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00028
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5
$0.325
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00784
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5
$1.35
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
$0.00616
Fits in one request

Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.5

Not published

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

$0.0028 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

2026-07-31

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.00784. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.00616.
Context tradeoff
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.5 and $0.00028 on DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.00784; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.00616. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731?

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence75 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.559.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073156.9%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.566.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld

    Claude Opus 4.566.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.559.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Claude Opus 4.552.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Opus 4.570.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Claude Opus 4.523.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Claude Opus 4.526.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.543.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073147.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.542.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073169%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • MCP-Tasks

    Claude Opus 4.571.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Claude Opus 4.576.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.550.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073176.7%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Opus 4.564.23%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.532.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073173.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073145.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073182.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073170.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073125.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073125.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073167.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.580.9%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073179%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Claude Opus 4.584.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.557.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073152.6%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.577.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073173.3%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Opus 4.543.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073154.2%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073191.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 07313052.0
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073156.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073182.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073154.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-FullStack

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073168.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073159.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073153.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073187.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Claude Opus 4.564.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Claude Opus 4.574%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR 1M

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073178.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073160.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-1

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073189.00%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073161.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.570.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Claude Opus 4.574.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.568.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Opus 4.584.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.545.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Claude Opus 4.567.0%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.587%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.1%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • SuperGPQA

    Claude Opus 4.570.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.589.5%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073186.2%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

  • MMLU-Redux

    Claude Opus 4.596.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.592.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.530.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073134.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • SimpleQA

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073134.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073178.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073189.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073186.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Claude Opus 4.585.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Claude Opus 4.556.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Claude Opus 4.590.9%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Claude Opus 4.558%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Claude Opus 4.595.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Claude Opus 4.592.9%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Claude Opus 4.593.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Opus 4.585.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073194.8%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 leads this result

  • MMAnswerBench

    Claude Opus 4.584.0%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.520.690%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.54.167%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731—

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073188.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073133.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    DeepSeek V4 Flash 073185.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

75 public results · 12 shared

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated September 27, 2026