Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Pro #48 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro share 5 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 74 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 18 to DeepSeek V4 Pro.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 74
- DeepSeek V4 Pro only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 5 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 60. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 59.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 7.7%.
Claude Opus 5 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. Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro 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 5 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 31.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro59.1 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 24.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro65.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 23.4 | DeepSeek V4 Pro41.3 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 ProNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro31.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 ProNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 7.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 57HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 7.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 52.1%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 27.1SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 52.1%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 73.6%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 22.4SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; DeepSeek V4 Pro scored 73.6%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$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 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 ProNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins29 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | 69.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 46.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 59.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.28% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 17.1% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 73.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 52.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | 69.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.1% | Not comparable |
Reasoning7 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins26 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 7.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | — | 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 |
Math9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | 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 |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1264 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 60. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 7.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 41.3. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 65.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 59.1. Inside this category, MCP Atlas is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.