Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
3.6pts
← winning
60.66/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro share 13 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 46 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 10 to DeepSeek V4 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.5 only
46
DeepSeek V4 Pro only
10
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 4 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 60.66. 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 31.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HMMT Feb 2026, 85.3% to 31.7%.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro. That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

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 V4 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin← 25.8DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1Margin← 16.8DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 6.4DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin← 3.5DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 ProNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 ProNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 ProNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · DeepSeek V4 Pro

  1. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 85.3%B 31.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 53.6
    HMMT Feb 2026: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 85.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 31.7%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 30.8%B 7.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 23.1
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 7.7%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87%B 72.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 14.1
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 72.9%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.9%B 73.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 7.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 80.9%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 73.6%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.5%B 82.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 6.6
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 89.5%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 82.9%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KDeepSeek V4 Pro1MDeepSeek V4 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%59.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%59.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%46.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%69.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.23%50.28%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —17.1%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%73.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%52.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%69.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.3%—Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource —44.7%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —35.6%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
GPQASource 87%72.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%82.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%7.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 12.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%—Not comparable
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource —45%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —75.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —72.9%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%31.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —35.3%Not comparable
ApexSource —0.4%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —9.2%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
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 12771264Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 ProResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 60.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HMMT Feb 2026, where the scores are 85.3% and 31.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 41.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 65.3. Inside this category, SWE Multilingual is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 57.5 versus 31.7. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2026 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.6 versus 59.1. Inside this category, MCP Atlas 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.