Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
14.6pts
← winning
53.95/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) #92 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) share 20 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 18 to DeepSeek V4 Flash (High).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
20
Claude Opus 4.6 only
26
DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) only
18
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash (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 20 shared benchmark results across 6 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 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 53.95. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 73 against 55.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 83.7% to 53.5%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash (High). That is roughly 89.3x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 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.

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 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin→ 55.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)91.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 17.7DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)55.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 17.0DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)52.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 0.4DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)68.5
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)

  1. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.7%B 53.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 30.2
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 53.5%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53%B 29.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 23.6
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 29.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 56.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 8.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 56.6%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 86.4%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Δ 4.4
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 86.4%. DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 91.3%B 87.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 3.9
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) scored 87.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)$0.14 input / $0.28 outputDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MDeepSeek V4 Flash (High)1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%56.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%53.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%95.6%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —40.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —67.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —43.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —28.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1147Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%78.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%52.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%42.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
CodeforcesSource —2816.0Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —70.2%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —56.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —52.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%62.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
CritPtSource 2.8%3.4%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
MRCR 1MSource —76.9%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —59.3%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
GPQASource 91.3%87.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%87.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%86.4%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%29.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%37.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%86.7%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%27.8%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-22.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%35.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%89.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SimpleQASource —28.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —73.2%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Flash (High) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —91.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —85.1%Not comparable
ApexSource —19.1%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —72.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251238Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%73.5%DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 53.95. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 83.7% and 53.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 52.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.5 versus 68.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?

DeepSeek V4 Flash (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 91.9 versus 36.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Flash (High)?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 55.3. Inside this category, BrowseComp 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.