Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; DeepSeek V4 Flash #35
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and DeepSeek V4 Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 11 to DeepSeek V4 Flash.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 41
- DeepSeek V4 Flash only
- 11
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 4 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 49.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.9% to 8.1%.
Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.14 input / $0.28 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Flash. That is roughly 89.3x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Flash 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 4.8 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | Margin← 31.2 | DeepSeek V4 Flash49.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin← 23.5 | DeepSeek V4 Flash39.2 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | Margin← 19.3 | DeepSeek V4 Flash57.1 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin← 13.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash40.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 57.9%B 8.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 49.8HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 8.1%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 74.6%B 49.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 25.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 93.6%B 71.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 22.4GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 71.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 69.2%B 49.1%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 20.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 49.1%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 88.6%B 73.7%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 14.9SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; DeepSeek V4 Flash scored 73.7%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash$0.14 input / $0.28 output | DeepSeek V4 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | DeepSeek V4 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | DeepSeek V4 Flash1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | 49.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1600 | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | 64% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | 40.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | 54.35% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 94.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 55.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1354 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 7.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 27.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | 73.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 69.2% | 49.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 84.4% | 69.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | 49.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 58.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 55.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 71.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | 71.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLESource | 57.9% | 8.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 83% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 71.5% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| USAMO 2026Source | 96.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 47.241% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 31.250% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 40.8% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 1.0% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 9.3% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | DeepSeek V4 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.9% and 8.1%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 39.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 57.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 40.8. DeepSeek V4 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 49.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.