Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #81 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 Pro (High).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 26
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 55.47. 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 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 53% to 34.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin→ 57.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | Margin← 12.1 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin← 2.4 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin→ 1.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 53%B 34.5%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 18.5HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82%B 87.1%Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Δ 5.1MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 87.1%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 83.7%B 80.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 3.3BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 83.7%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 91.3%B 89.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 2.2GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 89.1%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.4%B 63.3%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 2.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 63.3%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 63.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | 80.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 94.2% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 39.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1299 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 34.4% | Not comparable |
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | 79.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | 54.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) 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% | 46.4% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CodeforcesSource | — | 2919.0 | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 58.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | 89.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | 89.1% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | 87.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | 34.5% | 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% | 43.1% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 90.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 33.5% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -9.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 41.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SimpleQASource | — | 46.2% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (High) wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (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 | — | 94.0% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 71.3% | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 55.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 53% and 34.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 57. 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 (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.8 versus 68.1. 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 (High)?
DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 94 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 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 70.6. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.