Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.7
93
DeepSeek V3.2
60
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #2 · DeepSeek V3.2 unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+12.0 difference
Claude Opus 4.7
DeepSeek V3.2
$5 / $25
$0 / $0
N/A
35 t/s
N/A
3.75s
1M
128K
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V3.2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.7 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 93 to 60. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72.9 against 60.9.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V3.2. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for DeepSeek V3.2.
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 93 to 60.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.9 versus 60.9. DeepSeek V3.2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.