Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 16 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 22
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 37
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 22 shared benchmark results across 7 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 55.47. 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 71.7 against 69.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HMMT Feb 2026, 85.3% to 94.0%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 (High). That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | Margin→ 36.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin→ 8.0 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 1.9 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin← 1.1 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HMMT Feb 2026
MathA 85.3%B 94.0%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 8.7HMMT Feb 2026: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 85.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 94.0%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.3%B 63.3%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 4Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 30.8%B 34.5%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 3.7HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.1%B 54.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2.7SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 89.5%B 87.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2.4MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 89.5%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | 63.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| 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% | 49% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | 74.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1299 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 34.4% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | 79.4% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 54.4% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | 74.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 46.4% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| CodeforcesSource | — | 2919.0 | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning6 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | 89.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | 87.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | 34.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 43.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 90.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 33.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | -9.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 41.8% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 46.2% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | 94.0% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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 | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1277 | 1264 | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HMMT Feb 2026, where the scores are 85.3% and 94.0%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 69.8. 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 (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 versus 57.5. 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 (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 62.6. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.