Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Benchmark data for one or both models is coming soon. This page currently shows metadata and pricing where BenchLM has it, and score-level comparisons will populate as public benchmark results land.
85/100
Margin
39.0pts
← winning
46/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 53 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 24 to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Opus 4.8 only
53
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
24
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or 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; 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 46. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro 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.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MDeepSeek V4 Pro Base1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
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%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
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
BigCodeBenchSource —59.2%Not comparable
HumanEvalSource —76.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.9%—Not comparable
BBHSource —87.5%Not comparable
DROPSource —88.7%Not comparable
HellaSwagSource —88.0%Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource —81.5%Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource —85.2%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —51.5%Not comparable
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
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
AGIEvalSource —83.1%Not comparable
MMLUSource —90.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —90.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.1%Not comparable
CMMLUSource —90.8%Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource —51.1%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —55.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —53.9%Not comparable
FACTS ParametricSource —62.6%Not comparable
TriviaQASource —85.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
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
GSM8KSource —92.6%Not comparable
MATHSource —64.5%Not comparable
CMathSource —90.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
MGSMSource —84.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 46.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 62.7. Claude Opus 4.8 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 12, 2026

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.