Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 (Max) share 21 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 27 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
21
Claude Opus 4.6 only
25
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) only
27
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.6 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 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 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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.

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 (Max). That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 Pro (Max)
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin→ 58.9DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)95.2
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 9.0DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)60.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 2.8DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)70.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin→ 1.5DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)74.5
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)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 Pro (Max)

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53%B 37.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 15.3
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 37.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 87.5%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 5.5
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 87.5%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 67.9%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 2.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 67.9%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 55.4%
    Winner: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Δ 2
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 55.4%. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 91.3%B 90.1%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 1.2
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) scored 90.1%. 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 Pro (Max)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)$0.435 input / $0.87 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%67.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%83.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%96.2%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 —48.2%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1307Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —51.8%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —36.4%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —24.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —40.4%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —932Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —40.4%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —84.4%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —38.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —25.8%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —46.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —64%Not comparable
CodingDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%80.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%55.4%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%49.93%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%50.0%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
CodeforcesSource —3206.0Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —76.2%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —67.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —59.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-LCRSource 58.3%66.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
CritPtSource 2.8%12.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MRCR 1MSource —83.5%Not comparable
CorpusQA 1MSource —62.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
GPQASource 91.3%90.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%90.1%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%87.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%37.7%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%44.3%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%88.8%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%35.9%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-10.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%43.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%94.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SimpleQASource —57.9%Not comparable
Chinese-SimpleQASource —84.4%Not comparable
AA Openness IndexSource —50.0%Not comparable
MathDeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)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 —95.2%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —89.8%Not comparable
ApexSource —38.3%Not comparable
Apex ShortlistSource —90.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)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 13251264Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%76.5%DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

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

Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) 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 (Max)?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.9 versus 68.1. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 95.2 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 (Max)?

DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 73. Inside this category, τ²-bench results 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.