Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

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

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 44 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 22 to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude Opus 4.6 only
44
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
22
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.6 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority; DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 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 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base 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.

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 Base
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro Base
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 2.7DeepSeek V4 Pro Base66.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro Base51.5
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot 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 Base

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 53.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 41.1
    SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 95%; DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 53.9%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 73.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 8.5
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; DeepSeek V4 Pro Base scored 73.5%. 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 Pro BaseComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MDeepSeek V4 Pro Base1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%—Not comparable
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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%—Not comparable
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
BigCodeBenchSource —59.2%Not comparable
HumanEvalSource —76.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 2.8%—Not comparable
BBHSource —87.5%Not comparable
DROPSource —88.7%Not comparable
HellaSwagSource —88.0%Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource —81.5%Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource —85.2%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —51.5%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
GPQASource 91.3%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%53.9%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 82%73.5%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
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
AGIEvalSource —83.1%Not comparable
MMLUSource —90.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —90.8%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.1%Not comparable
CMMLUSource —90.8%Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource —51.1%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —55.2%Not comparable
FACTS ParametricSource —62.6%Not comparable
TriviaQASource —85.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
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
GSM8KSource —92.6%Not comparable
MATHSource —64.5%Not comparable
CMathSource —90.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
MGSMSource —84.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
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 1325—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base 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 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 66.4. Inside this category, SuperGPQA 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.