Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 22 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins3 category wins

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

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) share 22 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 26 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
22
Claude Opus 4.5 only
37
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
26
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.5 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the better fit 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 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

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 (Max). That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 (Max) 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 (Max)
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin→ 37.7DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin→ 11.9DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1Margin→ 2.0DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin← 0.8DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not 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 (Max)

  1. HMMT Feb 2026

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 85.3%B 95.2%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 9.9
    HMMT Feb 2026: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 85.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 95.2%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 67.9%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 8.6
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 67.9%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  3. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 30.8%B 37.7%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 6.9
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 37.7%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87%B 90.1%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 3.1
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 90.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  5. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.5%B 87.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 2
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 89.5%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 87.5%. 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 Pro (Max)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%67.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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%51.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%73.6%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%96.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —83.4%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —48.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1307Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —36.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —40.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —932Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —40.4%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —84.4%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —38.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —25.8%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —46.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —64%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%80.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%55.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%76.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%50.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
CodeforcesSource —3206.0Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —67.9%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —49.93%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —59.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%66.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
CritPtSource 0.3%12.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MRCR 1MSource —83.5%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —62.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
GPQASource 87%90.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SuperGPQASource 70.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%87.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%37.7%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%44.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%88.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%35.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-10.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%43.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%94.0%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource —57.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —84.4%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.1%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —50.0%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)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%95.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 —89.8%Not comparable
ApexSource —38.3%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —90.2%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)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 12771264Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%76.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Claude Opus 4.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 58.1. 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 (Max)?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 70.9. 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 V4 Pro (Max)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.2 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 (Max)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 62.6. 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.