Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
7.9pts
← winning
60.66/100
4 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro share 11 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 12 to DeepSeek V4 Pro.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
11
Claude Opus 4.6 only
35
DeepSeek V4 Pro only
12
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 4 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 60.66. 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 knowledge, where it averages 69.1 against 41.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 53% to 7.7%.

Claude Opus 4.6 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.

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 Pro
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 27.8DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 13.9DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin← 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 2.8DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 ProNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · DeepSeek V4 Pro

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53%B 7.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 45.3
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 7.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 91.3%B 72.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 18.4
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 72.9%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.8%B 73.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 7.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 73.6%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 59.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 6.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 59.1%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 52.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 1.3
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 52.1%. 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 ProComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$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 4.640 tok/sDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sDeepSeek V4 ProNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MDeepSeek V4 Pro1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%59.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%59.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%50.28%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%17.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —69.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —46.3%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%73.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%52.1%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%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —69.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 2.8%—Not comparable
MRCR 1MSource —44.7%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —35.6%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
GPQASource 91.3%72.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%72.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%82.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%7.7%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%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 18.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%—Not comparable
SimpleQASource —45%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —75.8%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
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 —31.7%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —35.3%Not comparable
ApexSource —0.4%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —9.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
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 13251264Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 ProResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 60.66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 53% and 7.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 41.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 65.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 36.3 versus 31.7. DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 59.1. Inside this category, Gert Labs 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.