Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Opus 4.6

Anthropic

67.7/100

Supported · Public rank #20

90% interval 54.5–81.0

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

DeepSeek

60.9/100

Estimated · Public rank #48

90% interval 51.1–70.8

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.73 versus 60.93, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

10 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
10
Claude Opus 4.6 only
23
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 only
24
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
73.0
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
74.5
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
68.1
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
70.9
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
69.1
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
62.5
Weighted basis
4 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
36.3
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
95.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
77.3
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.6
$0.0175
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.00087
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.6
$0.325
Fits in one request
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.02436
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.6
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
$0.01812
Fits in one request

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 has the lower modeled cost

Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.6

1M

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

1M

DeepSeek models and pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.6

Not published

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

$0.003625 per 1M cached input tokens

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.6

Non-Reasoning

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.6

2026-02-01

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

2026-08-13

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.73 versus 60.93, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.02436. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.01812.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence57 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.665.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.683.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.4%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.672.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.670.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 4.673.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.666.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.3%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Opus 4.661.85%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Claude Opus 4.619.9%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.636.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081360.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081373.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081351.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081374.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081325.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081331.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.680.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081380.6%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Claude Opus 4.675.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.670.7%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.653.4%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081355.4%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • SWE-Rebench

    Claude Opus 4.665.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Claude Opus 4.684.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.657.57%
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081349.93%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.626.9%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pass@1-COT

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081393.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Codeforces

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 08133206.0
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081376.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081361.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-FullStack

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081371.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DSBench-Hard

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081367.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR 1M

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081383.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CorpusQA 1M

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081362.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.691.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.689.2%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.1%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • SuperGPQA

    Claude Opus 4.695%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.682%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081387.5%
    Source

    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Claude Opus 4.689.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.653%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081342.7%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.640%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Claude Opus 4.614.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Claude Opus 4.652.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleQA

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081357.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Chinese-SimpleQA

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081384.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Claude Opus 4.699.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.640.700%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.622.900%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081395.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081389.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081338.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Apex Shortlist

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 081390.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.677.3%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Claude Opus 4.651.6%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.683.1%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Claude Opus 4.664.8%
    Source
    DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.73 versus 60.93, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.6 and $0.00087 on DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.02436; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.01812. Claude Opus 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 13, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.