Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Base
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Flash Base unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and DeepSeek V4 Flash Base share 0 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 24 to DeepSeek V4 Flash Base.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 38
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Base only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) makes more sense if reasoning is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; DeepSeek V4 Flash Base is the better fit if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 2 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 4.7 (Adaptive) and DeepSeek V4 Flash 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.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash Base 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.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | DeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | DeepSeek V4 Flash BaseNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | — | Not comparable |
| BigCodeBenchSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | — | 69.5% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRCR v2 128K-256KSource | 59.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | 70.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CritPtSource | 12.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BBHSource | — | 86.9% | Not comparable |
| DROPSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| HellaSwagSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| WinoGrandeSource | — | 79.5% | Not comparable |
| CLUEWSCSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
| LongBench v2Source | — | 44.7% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 82.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 88.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 89.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 68.3% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 88.8% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 92.1% | Not comparable |
| CMMLUSource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| MultiLoKoSource | — | 42.2% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 30.1% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 46.5% | Not comparable |
| FACTS ParametricSource | — | 33.9% | Not comparable |
| TriviaQASource | — | 82.8% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MGSMSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | DeepSeek V4 Flash Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or DeepSeek V4 Flash Base?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and DeepSeek V4 Flash 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 4.7 (Adaptive) or DeepSeek V4 Flash Base?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 56.4. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or DeepSeek V4 Flash Base?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 44.7. DeepSeek V4 Flash Base stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.