Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro #46 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V4 Pro share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 20 to DeepSeek V4 Pro.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 18
- DeepSeek V4 Pro only
- 20
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 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 4.7 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 71.94 to 60.66. 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 mathematics, where it averages 38.6 against 31.7.
Claude Opus 4.7 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. That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone.
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 4.7 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin← 6.9 | DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro$0.435 input / $0.87 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | DeepSeek V4 Pro1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | 50.28% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | 17.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 59.8% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 52.1% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 69.8% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 45% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 72.9% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 7.7% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 43.793% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 22.917% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 31.7% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 35.3% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 0.4% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 9.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 71.94 to 60.66.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 31.7. DeepSeek V4 Pro 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.